Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by FormerHangie, Jan 3, 2014.
excellent write up. Thanks. They are just great.
The seaplane question sparked a thought you tw folks want airplane handling skills go fly seaplanes. Lots more plane handling skill involved then riding a big wheel backwards. Never mind fly it all the way to the tied owns, you have to fly and sail and sometimes paddle.
I have about 6 hours in a taylorcraft on floats. Far different from a taildragger but every bit as challenging, the glassy water take off, getting it up on one float was trouble for me. I never finished as I was working and the FBO sold out. Lots of fun. It would take a long time to be good at it!
When I did mine the rule was 5 hours dual and a few solo circuits. Did that, then went to the TC office to get the rating, and they told me that the rule had just been changed to require 7 hours. At that point another student had damaged the airplane and it never flew on floats again, so I didn't get the rating.
Yet. That was 15 years ago.
But it sure makes one careful about alignment and touchdown attitude, and introduces a whole lot more variables. Which is why insurance costs a bunch more for floatplanes and amphibs.
Could you post a selfie with the biceps flexed, please?
I got a commercial float plane rating with a whopping 5 or 6 hours of training. It was indeed a lot of fun but unlike tailwheel experience there's little or nothing to transfer to "normal" flying (with the possible exception of improving your fuel planning ability). The need for step taxiing, sailing, docking, and paddling skills just never seems to come up when flying something that can only take off from solid ground.
Getting a float plane rating and being really good at it seems like two different things to me. This is very true in taildraggers also. I would really have liked to have checked out and flown some hours in a 180 Cessna or a beaver on floats but wasn't able to afford it.
I flew Wayne Bowers BEAUTIFUL 180 and was thoroughly impressed. I would love to be able to afford one. Of that era's Cessna taildraggers, it seems to be the Rolls Royce of the bunch.
If my quick perusing of the posts was correct, it seems that people are saying that the 180 flaps are tough. I don't remember that and it seems strange that they would take that much strength. I might have totally misunderstood the comments.
Float skills don't transfer. You guys just confirmed TW flying is a dopey ego driven mutual appreciation society.
Could you please explain how that was confirmed? I missed it somehow. Would you also please denote whether or not you are tailwheel proficient?
Hey congrats, troll post # 3200 for you. Those dopey aircraft designers will just never learn...
Don't take trolls seriously. This thread is nothing but dead horse whipping at this point.
Because tail wheel skills transfer no more than seaplane skills. You have a limited set of skill area when transitioning to the surface of the planet where there is a difference. Seaplane has and extra skill set of water handling that transitions not to either tail wheel nor tricycle. I am proficient in all three.
And THAT explains why someone who just so happens flies a tailwheel aircraft is automatically a member of a "dopey ego driven mutual appreciation society?"
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I just don't understand how the type of plane you fly, translates into what I quoted above.
I bought a tailwheel plane because at the time I thought I was going to end up with a grass strip on my place. I don't understand how such a purchase decision, driven by projected practicality translates into such a trait.
This is total B.S. Of course tail wheel skills transfer to tricycle gear. I flew 1500-2000 hours before I flew a mooney. It made a tremendous difference. Try it the other way around! to check out in a tail dragger in optimum conditions is not a big deal. To fly it well 4 seasons, four times is a far different story. Sea planes are again, another story. For anyone who only has flown tri gear, jump in a 180 Cessna and see how you do. I checked out in a mooney in an hour and flew it very well after that. I am very proficient in a mooney and a bonanza solely because of being very proficient in taildraggers. I'd venture to say most deniers have never flown a taildragger or don't do well in them. Henning might be different. God ear is at his lips.
It's not the plane, it's the cult of personality types that say "you have to fly tail wheels to learn to be a real pilot". Being able to land a tail wheel or on water doesn't make one a 'better pilot', learning to make good decisions makes you a better pilot. Bad decisions get way more pilots killed than skills.
Sometimes the plane, sometimes not. The fellow who elected to land the jet in a 30 mile tailwind ....that was the person not the plane. Deciding to land a taildragger in a 20 mile an hour crosswind with some gusts. Could be the plane but most likely a pilot with very little time in one. Landing in this type situation may require landing on one wheel first.( read skill) Not many tri gear pilots do this.......intentionally.
Every Tri gear pilot I know lands in a cross wind one wheel first, pretty much every landing I did in my PP training had a cross wind component and was done in a slip.
Henning you probably checked out as a kamakazi pilot too. Please tell us of anything you have not done. You are surely a most remarkable BSer.
So funny. The TW hive mind is circling the wagons to try and protect the frail TW ego. Henning you BSer.
Not much check out needed, but it may be how I decide to check out.
While the importance of proper use of the rudder, landing alignment, and paying attention to flight controls is typically less in a tricycle they are still beneficial. Therefore I still maintain that TW training and related skills do transfer somewhat to other airplanes and much more than almost anything that's part of a normal ASES transition program.
Depends on your interpretation of the word "better". I think more skillful is better than less skillful although I do agree that good decisions are more important than most skills. If you have limited skills WRT crosswind landings but manage to avoid needing them you can be safe.
If you had proper training in a 152 and aren't a lazy pilot, the rudder function is the same in a tail wheel as it is in a tricycle. People are confusing what an airplane does with what a poor instructor or poor pilot fail to do. And again, the 'difference' you are citing lasts for 8 seconds out of every flight and detracts from what the real issue of being a good pilot is about; decision making, and I know a lot of tail wheel pilots who are crap at that same as trike pilots. There's a couple videos on YouTube, one of a Maule and one of an L-19 IIRC filming fatal flights due to poor decision making, we won't even get into the last few years air show deaths which were all tail wheel.
"I fly a tail wheel, ergo I am a superior pilot" is just a bunch of egocentric crap which is no more than a mental trap setting people up to die. Tailwheel skills mean absolutely nothing when the wheels are off the ground.
I think txflyer was the only one suggesting "180 flaps are tough". Not to pick on him personally but I suspect he's in the habit of extending full flaps with more airspeed than nessesary, slow the airplane down first and it's not that hard plus it's easier on the flap tracks.
I never meant to imply that TW pilots are "superior" but rather that most pilots who undergo the training for a TW endorsement end up as "better" pilots at least for a little while. And while you are correct that takeoff and landing is the only time when anything completely unique to tailwheel airplanes is important skillwise, the majority of tailwheel airplanes, especially the ones most commonly used for training demand more attention to rudder control and coordination.
You should have. the FAA thinks they must to get an endorsement, If the requirement is more training to fly the conventional gear, it must make them better pilots.
Die thread, die!
Yep, here's how tail dragging makes you a superior pilot:
So then since a Bonanza pilot requires 2 endorsements, that should mean they're twice as good of pilots as tail wheel pilots.
Stupidly is not counted by where the wheels are.
Aren't there tail wheel aircraft that require two or more endorsements?
There are tail wheel pilots, and there are those who have the endorsement.
Exactly! That's my point, there is nothing about training in a tail wheel that will make a better pilot, it just adds a required skill for those who fly them, or you get the last result. Since you don't get that result with a tricycle, that tail wheel skill serves no benefit. Being a better pilot is about learning to not be stupid.
Sure,or even a rating. None of the above makes a good pilot of itself.
I should guess any tailwheel airplane with a constant speed propellor would require not only a tailwheel endorsement but also a complex endorsement? Unless of course you'r an old geezer that's grandfathered in
Nope, it would have to be a retract(they exist). If it was over 200hp there's a HP endorsement, or if it's a multi, it requires a multi rating. You can have any or all of these and still be a poor pilot. Ratings don't teach thinking.
I do have the high horse power, the tailwheel, and the complex.
And I had them prior to becoming an old geeser