Training in DTLS vs. J-3 Cub

[JB1842]

Training in CTLS vs. J-3 Cub

Noob here about to start taking lessons again after an 8 year training absence (going to get the Sport first then work towards PPL). I am trying to choose which of 2 planes to train in. It costs more to train in the CTLS, but closer to where I live. The Cub is about twice the distance, but a lot cheaper (but the regular rental rate after i get my certificate is a $5 difference between).

My question is, when learning to fly in the CTLS, how much of my training is going to be used learning all the avionics on board? Will learning the systems on the more advanced aircraft add more training time? I have the funds and time right now to get lessons everyday of the week if I can schedule it, so I would rather spend the most of it learning to fly instead of learning the GPS, radios, etc. I understand that comparing each aircraft is like comparing apples to oranges, and that everybody learns at different rates and can take longer hours than others.

Right now I am leaning towards learning in the Cub, both to save some cash and due to the simple fact it seems like (to me anyways) that there is something more "pure" when flying an old-school aircraft without all the bells and whistles. I then plan to use the saved cash to get checked out on the CTLS and have the option of both to build time and to enjoy flying.

Does anybody out there have experience with either/both of these planes, or can give me any input/advice at all? Sorry for the long post. Thanks.

 

[AggieMike88]

I did my private in a Diamond DA20 that was equipped with a GNS430/SL40/GTX327 stack. For a trainer, this setup is pretty advanced when compared to most of the C152's the school had on the line.

I selected this aircraft because I wanted to learn in a low wing aircraft, not because it had "cool things" on the panel.

My PPL training experience was that we didn't focus on any of the "fancy items" beyond what I needed to know to complete the course. Sure, the GNS430 is a very useful bit of kit, but I got my PPL only knowing how to work the vary basics of its system, including the radios, the zoom in/out, and the direct to button. Everything else were the basics of how to operate the aircraft safely. We probably could have covered up the right 75% of the GNS430's screen with a black post it and I would have never missed it.

Likely your experience in the CTLS will be similar. If it isn't, then speak your desires with your instructor. You do have a lot of say in how you wish to approach your lessons. And the good instructors listen and adapt.

 

[RoscoeT]

It's a no-brainer to me, given your rare opportunity to learn in a tailwheel airplane vs. a trike...not only a TW, but maybe the best trainer in history. I think you will be better off for it, and it will give you skills to fly any other tailwheel airplane with little transition. And the transition to flying other trikes will be non-existent...like going from stick to automatic transmission. Vice versa is not true. The Cub will teach you better rudder skills, and airspeed/attitude control during landing. It will also teach you to use your peripheral vision to gauge height, drift, and alignment - which will be needed should you fly other antique classic types - especially biplanes. Not to mention that the Cub is just one of the most enjoyable airplanes in the world to fly. You will learn to handprop too, so you won't be one of those accident waiting to happen pilots should you have a dead battery in some other airplane and choose to prop it. Good luck.

 

[JB1842]

Thanks for the replies. As of know, I'm leaning towards the cub. I'm just waiting to hear back from the school to set the training up. I've read on other boards that pilots who learn with a TW seem to be better pilots, and if it helps me be a better pilot, then that a plus in my book.

 

[BiffJ]

Having done my primary in an L2 taylorcraft and finishing up in an F19 taylorcraft I can tell you that learning in a tailwheel aircraft will make your life easier down the road. You can check out in just about anything available and yes there are still tailwheelers out there for rent. On the other hand the nosewheeler guys need special dispensations and signoffs just to join the club. Its worth it to do the J3.

Good luck

Frank

 

[MBDiagMan]

It's a no-brainer to me, given your rare opportunity to learn in a tailwheel airplane vs. a trike...not only a TW, but maybe the best trainer in history. I think you will be better off for it, and it will give you skills to fly any other tailwheel airplane with little transition. And the transition to flying other trikes will be non-existent...like going from stick to automatic transmission. Vice versa is not true. The Cub will teach you better rudder skills, and airspeed/attitude control during landing. It will also teach you to use your peripheral vision to gauge height, drift, and alignment - which will be needed should you fly other antique classic types - especially biplanes. Not to mention that the Cub is just one of the most enjoyable airplanes in the world to fly. You will learn to handprop too, so you won't be one of those accident waiting to happen pilots should you have a dead battery in some other airplane and choose to prop it. Good luck.

I TOTALLY agree with Roscoe. Not only is the J3 a great trainer, but starting in a tailwheel plane will make a better pilot out of you. The fancy panel in the other plane will do nothing for you in your early basic training. Your early training is about stick and rudder skills and a tailwheel plane with steam gauges is a GREAT way to learn your basic flying skills.

Should you decide on the J3 I would highly recommend that you get a copy of the Tailwheel101 DVD and watch it repeatedly until you solo and even beyond. The DVD can be purchased from different sources. Google it and you will find one.

Keep us posted on your decision and your training progress.

Doc

 

[deltafox]

Seems to me you should train in the plane you eventually want to fly. Both planes offer unique advantages, and there is a reason why manufactures moved away from conventional gear in favor of tricycle landing gear (and the insurance rates reflect that). The transition to glass is not trivial and if you expect to eventually be flying using the latest technology it is never too soon to start. It is true, older less sophisticated planes are currently more available. So if you plan to relocate often it would be wise to train in the most common type (C172).

 

[JB1842]

Doc,
Thanks for the tip on the DVD. I'll see if I can find it at Oshkosh when I get up there (a nice benefit of living in Wisconsin). I've been watching a bunch of youtube videos of both the CTLS and the Cub. It seems like those Cub pilots have a lot of fun flying them.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Thanks for the replies. As of know, I'm leaning towards the cub. I'm just waiting to hear back from the school to set the training up. I've read on other boards that pilots who learn with a TW seem to be better pilots, and if it helps me be a better pilot, then that a plus in my book.

Dunno that it makes you a "better" pilot. But I found it easy to learn with a tailwheel (Cessna 120) and it appears to be difficult to transition from a nosewheel to a tailwheel. So in the long run, starting with a tailwheel seems to be the better way to go.

But about the avionics stuff? Not a clue. Never flew with it.

 

[RyanShort1]

Fly the Cub, for sure. Just make sure that they have a plan for teaching in it, and also an examiner lined up to do the checkride.

Ryan

 

[Henning]

What are you going to end up flying later? Are you going to want to take a passenger? Hop up in the front seat of the J-3 for a flight and see if you want to subject your passengers to that. I've never understood the love of the J-3, and I don't see where it is any better of a trainer than anything else, and please don't tell me about learning to use the rudder, that's the biggest load I've heard. You use the rudder the same regardless of where the third wheel is. Because one didn't learn to use the rudder properly in a 152 is no fault of the 152. You don't need to get ground looped to learn how to use a rudder. What makes the design unacceptable, for initial training especially anymore, in my book is having a lap full of fuel. Sorry, That's a stupid and unnecessary risk in this day and age, we know better now. How much cheaper is the Cub anyway? How much further to drive? How much less frequently will you fly due to distance? Between the extra fuel costs of getting there, and the increased total time and lessons because of flying less frequently? Then there's also the extra time to get checked out in the CTLS later? Unless that Cub is half the price, there's a good chance you won't end up saving money. As I said before though, that still isn't the primary issue, the lap full of fuel is. I've seen the results of when that goes wrong, they aren't pretty, and it will be your passenger that bears the brunt of it.

 

[JB1842]

I was crunching the numbers earlier to see of it was worth the extra gas in my car to drive further for the cub, and the money wise the cub makes sense. If I was to pass the checkride with the minimum hours required (I could only hope), I will be saving around $500 to start. The cub is an extra 40 minute travel time roundtrip to get to. Is it worth it? I don't know. Right now it's only me and the wife, so I dont have to worry about missing a little league game or anything like that, and the drive isn't bad. The $500 won't break the bank, but I could use that for more instruction and for time building. My main focus is to fly because it's fun, whichever plane that may be. I have no idea what my future aircraft may be. Overall, I think I would be very happy with either one to train in, but I just want as much info as possible before I make the decision.

 

[Henning]

I was crunching the numbers earlier to see of it was worth the extra gas in my car to drive further for the cub, and the money wise the cub makes sense. If I was to pass the checkride with the minimum hours required (I could only hope), I will be saving around $500 to start. The cub is an extra 40 minute travel time roundtrip to get to. Is it worth it? I don't know. Right now it's only me and the wife, so I dont have to worry about missing a little league game or anything like that, and the drive isn't bad. The $500 won't break the bank, but I could use that for more instruction and for time building. My main focus is to fly because it's fun, whichever plane that may be. I have no idea what my future aircraft may be. Overall, I think I would be very happy with either one to train in, but I just want as much info as possible before I make the decision.

Gas tank in lap...'nuff said.

 

[TripleZ]

Tailwheel FTW. I wish I had the opportunity to do my training in a tailwheel, instead of a trike. Now I have to do an additional 10hrs with an instructor in a tail wheel before I can rent it. ($1700 for a Citabria).

There's no sign off for a glass panel (least I don't think so).

 

[JB1842]

Gas tank in the lap would suck pretty bad. The biggest decision factor for me is the difference in the drive times. I say now that the longer drive isn't too bad, but am I really going to like doing it a couple times a week? And I also think that whatever school can get me scheduled first will win. I know it will be 2-3 weeks for the school with the CTLS. I havent heard back from the cub school yet.

 

[RyanShort1]

Gas tank in the lap would suck pretty bad. The biggest decision factor for me is the difference in the drive times. I say now that the longer drive isn't too bad, but am I really going to like doing it a couple times a week? And I also think that whatever school can get me scheduled first will win. I know it will be 2-3 weeks for the school with the CTLS. I havent heard back from the cub school yet.

Well, the gas tank in the lap isn't great, but I do it with the student in the back on a regular basis. I don't hear about Cubs crashing and burning THAT often and it doesn't have the reputation for catching fire like a Cir... um, well, anyway, it's not like it's a death-trap. Besides, you're only landing at something like 30-40 mph in the Cub. I still think that if you learn in the Cub it'd be easier to transition to the CTLS than the other way around, and have more options of what you can fly when you get done.

Ryan

 

[RoscoeT]

What are you going to end up flying later? Are you going to want to take a passenger? Hop up in the front seat of the J-3 for a flight and see if you want to subject your passengers to that. I've never understood the love of the J-3, and I don't see where it is any better of a trainer than anything else, and please don't tell me about learning to use the rudder, that's the biggest load I've heard. You use the rudder the same regardless of where the third wheel is. Because one didn't learn to use the rudder properly in a 152 is no fault of the 152. You don't need to get ground looped to learn how to use a rudder. What makes the design unacceptable, for initial training especially anymore, in my book is having a lap full of fuel. Sorry, That's a stupid and unnecessary risk in this day and age, we know better now. How much cheaper is the Cub anyway? How much further to drive? How much less frequently will you fly due to distance? Between the extra fuel costs of getting there, and the increased total time and lessons because of flying less frequently? Then there's also the extra time to get checked out in the CTLS later? Unless that Cub is half the price, there's a good chance you won't end up saving money. As I said before though, that still isn't the primary issue, the lap full of fuel is. I've seen the results of when that goes wrong, they aren't pretty, and it will be your passenger that bears the brunt of it.

Find me data that suggests you're more likely to burn up in a J-3 than anything else. I've never heard of it, though I'm sure it's happened the same as any other plane. And where's the data that suggests wing tanks are less likely to burst in a crash? End up on your back after a decent impact, wing tanks are gonna dump fuel all around the airplane anyway.

As far as rudder skills, yes you can learn them the same in a 152, but it takes much more effort on the part of the instructor. The J-3 will makes it very obvious on its own. All the pilots these days who drive around with their feet flat on the floor and are afraid of slips and power off landings would have benefited from learning in a TW. The instructor is very important, but I think your modern 22-yr old kid working on his 1500 hrs to jump ship ASAP for his chance at regional hell is not the most likely type of instructor to hammer home these types of basics. I don't know many of these types of instructors teaching in Cubs, not that you can't control who you choose to hire as a CFI. I think it takes a CFI who's well above average to produce a student with the same rudder skills in a 152 that they'd end up with in a J-3. The front seat of a J-3 isn't as bad as you make it out to be. I'd rather be up there than in an early 150, Taylorcraft, Luscombe, or C-120.

And you don't care if tailwheel flying and all those cool airplanes just die out? There's a whole world of flying that modern flight school students aren't exposed to. There's a generation of pilots learning to fly right now who would never land on grass, and would never land on a runway shorter than 3000' in a 152. These same pilots are at the limit of comfort doing a steep turn, are nervous doing stalls, and terrified of the idea of spins. Aerobatics? ...hell. Aerobatics and tailwheel airplanes could die out in the next generation if all this keeps up.

 

[nosehair]

I've never understood the love of the J-3, and I don't see where it is any better of a trainer than anything else, and please don't tell me about learning to use the rudder, that's the biggest load I've heard. You use the rudder the same regardless of where the third wheel is. Because one didn't learn to use the rudder properly in a 152 is no fault of the 152.

OK, here's where we're gonna fight.

I started out 50 years ago, when everybody learned in a t/w.

In a t/w, you cannot land with any, repeat: any sideload.

If the airplane's nose is 1 degree off center at touchdown, it will rapidly try to whip in that direction, and require immediate and aggressive rudder, and aileron, inputs to maintain control, as well as elevator (stick) full back position.

In other words, you have to keep flying the airplane during the roll-out.

This happens naturally. The airplane teaches the student how to make aggressive and positive control inputs throughout the landing flare, touchdown, and roll-out.

And you are right...technically. I do teach in a 152 like i do in a t/w.
You can pull the nose up early on take-off, sorta like soft-field, and get the feel of rudder control on take-off.
And you can require students to land with the nose straight, and teach a student to recognize a little sideload, and land with the nose high, and keep the elevator back and keep the nose off, almost as effectively as a t/w.

BUT..most instructors dd not even recognize a little sideload on touchdown.
Not their fault - that's how they learned.
The whole purpose of the nosewheel is to eliminate the precision required in a t/w.
Nosewheel airplanes are great for "normal" operations with pilots who have been trained well in stick-and-rudder skill, but they are like 'training wheels'. They need to come off to experience real pilot control.

After 50 years of teaching, if it were my world, I would require all initial pilot training to be in a tailwheel airplane, with no radios, at a non-towered airport.

Initial pilot training should be totally focused on stick-and-rudder skills.
Introducing other learning at that time causes overload.

We can only absorb so much at a given time, and a student will not be able to shut out all the other garbage about "other procedures" when he/she should be totally absorbed in feeling the airplane, feeling the pressures required to control the airplane about the 3 axis. Period.

 

[MBDiagMan]

OK, here's where we're gonna fight.

I started out 50 years ago, when everybody learned in a t/w.

In a t/w, you cannot land with any, repeat: any sideload.

If the airplane's nose is 1 degree off center at touchdown, it will rapidly try to whip in that direction, and require immediate and aggressive rudder, and aileron, inputs to maintain control, as well as elevator (stick) full back position.

In other words, you have to keep flying the airplane during the roll-out.

This happens naturally. The airplane teaches the student how to make aggressive and positive control inputs throughout the landing flare, touchdown, and roll-out.

And you are right...technically. I do teach in a 152 like i do in a t/w.
You can pull the nose up early on take-off, sorta like soft-field, and get the feel of rudder control on take-off.
And you can require students to land with the nose straight, and teach a student to recognize a little sideload, and land with the nose high, and keep the elevator back and keep the nose off, almost as effectively as a t/w.

BUT..most instructors dd not even recognize a little sideload on touchdown.
Not their fault - that's how they learned.
The whole purpose of the nosewheel is to eliminate the precision required in a t/w.
Nosewheel airplanes are great for "normal" operations with pilots who have been trained well in stick-and-rudder skill, but they are like 'training wheels'. They need to come off to experience real pilot control.

After 50 years of teaching, if it were my world, I would require all initial pilot training to be in a tailwheel airplane, with no radios, at a non-towered airport.

Initial pilot training should be totally focused on stick-and-rudder skills.
Introducing other learning at that time causes overload.

We can only absorb so much at a given time, and a student will not be able to shut out all the other garbage about "other procedures" when he/she should be totally absorbed in feeling the airplane, feeling the pressures required to control the airplane about the 3 axis. Period.

Thanks Nosehair! Very well explained. Your explanation also brought to my attention the need for runway alignment.

My first 7 hours, 20 years ago were in tailwheel planes. 6 of those in an Aeronca Champ that required CONSTANT rudder attention. When I stepped into the 150 it was like there weren't any rudder pedals because it was totally habit.

I'm about as rookie as anyone on this forum, but with enough tailwheel experience to know the differences. I have a particular need for a tailwheel plane because I want to eventually fly in and out of my pasture. Even for someone who will never NEED a tailwheel plane, I stand by my statement that STARTING in a taildragger will make a better pilot out of you.

I began driving in a stick shift pickup and car. I taught both my kids in stick shift cars. When the occasion has arisen ( they both drive stick shifts to this day) they were able to drive an automatic, no problem. Had they learned in an automatic, would they have been able to drive a stick shift with no extra training? I don't think so.

It's all personal preference. We all are different, with different likes and dislikes, and different attitudes about life and everything in it. I totally respect the opinions of others and I hope that I can voice mine without fear of retribution.

My $0.02,
Doc

 

[MBDiagMan]

Doc,
Thanks for the tip on the DVD. I'll see if I can find it at Oshkosh when I get up there (a nice benefit of living in Wisconsin). I've been watching a bunch of youtube videos of both the CTLS and the Cub. It seems like those Cub pilots have a lot of fun flying them.

I would fully expect the Tailwheel101 guy to be at OSH. His name is Damion Delgaizo. If he's not, I expect you can find it from numerous vendors there.

Doc

 

[Henning]

OK, here's where we're gonna fight.

I started out 50 years ago, when everybody learned in a t/w.

In a t/w, you cannot land with any, repeat: any sideload.

If the airplane's nose is 1 degree off center at touchdown, it will rapidly try to whip in that direction, and require immediate and aggressive rudder, and aileron, inputs to maintain control, as well as elevator (stick) full back position.

This is where I call "exaggeration". You make it seem like having a tailwheel is like having a demon on a short leash and you have to do everything perfect every time, and that's not true. I have around 1000hrs of TW time in large and small TW planes (Js & PA-12&18 to Ag Cats and Air Tractors to BE-18 even a couple in J-2s & J-3s on floats) and have screwed up over 100 landings and only ground looped once and that was with a broken tailwheel. I grant that one must control it for longer during the roll out, but that is only a very short while in any flight. While it is more forgiving in a tri gear plane to make an error, it still tells you you screwed up without doing $10,000 in damage (which is why it's cheaper to insure a tri gear plane of comparable size to a TW). Increasing risk of damage does not have an overall effect of improving training, especially when it reduces the conditions envelope one can train in. While training in a TW may help make up for a poor instructor in some senses, in other senses it increases the possibility that you will get screwed up during your training as well. It doesn't do your training a lot of good when you wipe out your trainer and it goes off line. When you consider how few TW planes are out there for rent solo, unless you own a TW or plan on working one, I don't see the great advantage in exposing your risk to accident early in your training. There is a reason the industry switched to Tri Gear and the insurance companies charge extra, starting about 5 times the premiums on a TW plane until 250hrs in M&M rather than 100hrs where price drops to minimum rate premiums.

There isn't anything you learn in a J-3 that can't be learned in a 152. Just because someone can't find a decent instructor is not the fault of the airplane and doesn't really justify the increased risk exposure IMO.

If you have or are planning to buy a TW, then fine, you have a reason to train in one, but for 97% of pilots, they are never going to fly a tailwheel, and for the majority of people who get a TW endorsement they will never use it enough to be insurable since if you don't own one or have 250hrs TW, you'll find less than a handfull of TW planes to fly except dual.

BTW, my issue is not with TW in general, it is with the J-3 and it's close relatives on the same airframe. When you compare the J-3 design features and details to what are considered basic safety standards today, the plane is a Fail. The thing is as bad as the motorcycles that come out of Orange County Choppers with all sorts of protruding hard-sharp features including bits on gas tanks that will grab your scrotum and tear it off in the event of a minor accident. We have evolved in technology and safety in the 70 years since that plane was designed. I still have a scar on my knee from turbulence in a J-3 where I cracked it on the bottom of the panel.

The reason most people are fond of the J-3 is romantic and personal reasons because it reminds them of being a kid training in one with dad or gramps who had one, and they had one because it was the cheapest plane you could buy. Heck, lot's of people "love" the Cub and have never even sat in one much less flown one. The plane is an ergonomic nightmare, just getting in is an ergonomic nightmare, I'd hate to have to get out of the front seat in a fire, that's for damned sure, and there not going to be a way for someone to drag you out quick....

Learning in a 70 year old design that triples your risk exposure while providing a gain in 4 seconds of a flight while neglecting to teach 2/3rds or more of aircraft management (because it is not equipped) does not represent sound ADM to me, and sound ADM is MUCH more critical to learn than not ground looping a plane design that unless you buy one or go to utility work, the chances are very high you won't fly again.

Learning in a J-3 is "romance decision" for the majority of people who do it, and those "romance decisions" in aviation should be restricted to purchase decisions. The truth is in modern aviation, it's more critical to overall safety for a student to use all the "doo dads" that a J-3 is missing that deals with 95% of flying opposed to increasing a skill marginally that only effects the brief periods of time that someone transitions between air and land. The FAA seems to agree with this as well and has made it impossible to earn a PPL using a stock J-3, OTOH, you can earn a PPL in a CTLS.

If you really want to train in a TW, use something like a Citabria, at least you get rid of the damned heel brakes and will have a panel that'll let you complete a PPL.

 

[Henning]

I stand by my statement that STARTING in a taildragger will make a better pilot out of you.

Most people are poor pilots because they fail to think correctly and make good decisions, tailwheel doesn't effect any of that. Being able to land a TW does not stand even in the top half of the list of what makes someone a good pilot.

 

[JB1842]

Wow. I didn't think my first post would bring as many responses. I'm meeting with the cub instructor either today or tomorrow. I can appreciate the safety factors that are designed in newer aircraft, but to me it isn't a huge consideration. A friend I grew up with died in a crash working towards his commercial a few years back. This aircraft, who someone else brought up earlier that starts with a "C", went into a spin and the parachute recovery system failed to completely deploy. The crash was attributed to pilot error, but this plane had all the bells and whistles and it didn't matter in the end. THe cub instructor instructs full time in them, and also teaches spin recovery to every student. To me that sounds like valuable training.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Wow. I didn't think my first post would bring as many responses. I'm meeting with the cub instructor either today or tomorrow. I can appreciate the safety factors that are designed in newer aircraft, but to me it isn't a huge consideration. A friend I grew up with died in a crash working towards his commercial a few years back. This aircraft, who someone else brought up earlier that starts with a "C", went into a spin and the parachute recovery system failed to completely deploy. The crash was attributed to pilot error, but this plane had all the bells and whistles and it didn't matter in the end. THe cub instructor instructs full time in them, and also teaches spin recovery to every student. To me that sounds like valuable training.

Yes, my instructor 20 years ago expected you to spin before being signed off for the check ride. I suppose that this is a bit controversial. On the one hand, knowing how to recover from a spin is obviously a good thing. On the other hand, I remember reading that the FAA stopped requiring spin recovery many years ago because they determined that they were losing more people from spin training than if they didn't do it. I don't know how valid this is, but with a competent instructor I think your best bet is to indeed do the spin training as long as it's in a plane properly certified.

My $0.02,
Doc

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Yes, my instructor 20 years ago expected you to spin before being signed off for the check ride. I suppose that this is a bit controversial. On the one hand, knowing how to recover from a spin is obviously a good thing. On the other hand, I remember reading that the FAA stopped requiring spin recovery many years ago because they determined that they were losing more people from spin training than if they didn't do it. I don't know how valid this is, but with a competent instructor I think your best bet is to indeed do the spin training as long as it's in a plane properly certified.

Spins are fun.

Good 'nuff for me.

One could do the J3 through first solo or so, then switch to the other thing to learn about all that electronic stuff.

 

[JB1842]

I thought about doing initial training in the cub and then switching to the CTLS. I'm not sure if that would be beneficial overall. Plus, it seems to me sort of shallow to start training with one instructor and then switch to fly another plane. Unless me and the instructor aren't compatible, other other training issues arise, I think I owe it to the original instructor to stick with him.

 

[Henning]

I thought about doing initial training in the cub and then switching to the CTLS. I'm not sure if that would be beneficial overall. Plus, it seems to me sort of shallow to start training with one instructor and then switch to fly another plane. Unless me and the instructor aren't compatible, other other training issues arise, I think I owe it to the original instructor to stick with him.

No, you do not. You owe yourself and your future passengers the best training for your situation, that's the only moral debt you have in flight training.

 

[Henning]

Yes, my instructor 20 years ago expected you to spin before being signed off for the check ride. I suppose that this is a bit controversial. On the one hand, knowing how to recover from a spin is obviously a good thing. On the other hand, I remember reading that the FAA stopped requiring spin recovery many years ago because they determined that they were losing more people from spin training than if they didn't do it. I don't know how valid this is, but with a competent instructor I think your best bet is to indeed do the spin training as long as it's in a plane properly certified.

My $0.02,
Doc

I got spin training on my first power on stall in a 152... "All right now stay with me, close throttle, forward yoke, opposite rudder stop the spin now pull back, add throttle, and that's how we recover from a spin which is what happens when you don't add right rudder into a take off stall."

 

[JB1842]

What I meant by was that If I'm receving good instruction and work well with the instructor, I owe it to stick with him. Don't really think it's worth trading good training to switch planes.

 

[RoscoeT]

I got spin training on my first power on stall in a 152... "All right now stay with me, close throttle, forward yoke, opposite rudder stop the spin now pull back, add throttle, and that's how we recover from a spin which is what happens when you don't add right rudder into a take off stall."

A good example to not consider your CFI's words as gospel. There are problems all up and down this.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Find me data that suggests you're more likely to burn up in a J-3 than anything else.

Old plane = lower safety qualifications

The instructor is very important, but I think your modern 22-yr old kid working on his 1500 hrs to jump ship ASAP for his chance at regional hell is not the most likely type of instructor to hammer home these types of basics.

Careful about that CFI remark. That's not cool.

 

[DavidWhite]

I got my TW endorsement a few weeks ago with Ryan, and I feel like it made me a 10x better pilot.


Cubs are alot of fun.

 

[RoscoeT]

Old plane = lower safety qualifications

Are you serious? I asked about statistics showing you're more likely to die in a fire in a J-3 vs. anything else. There's no modern "safety qualification" that precludes the FAA from certifying a design with fuselage fuel tanks. Plenty have them.

Careful about that CFI remark. That's not cool.

Resemble that remark? Don't mean to generalize, but if you have any knowledge of aviation, you understand the flaws in the training system.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

A good example to not consider your CFI's words as gospel.

Anti-authority much?

Resemble that remark? Don't mean to generalize, but if you have any knowledge of aviation, you understand the flaws in the training system.

No I do not resemble that remark, However a majority of my training is with that kind of CFI and I like them much more than those that have been around the block for a while.

It appears to me that just YOUR training may be flawed. I wouldn't say the system is whatsoever.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Are you serious? I asked about statistics showing you're more likely to die in a fire in a J-3 vs. anything else. There's no modern "safety qualification" that precludes the FAA from certifying a design with fuselage fuel tanks. Plenty have them.

The FAA doesn't have to mandate it. Take Diamond for example, fuel tanks sandwiched between the two spars. The Manufacturers learn what is safest.

 

[RoscoeT]

Anti-authority much?

No, and it has nothing to do with that. One of the worst traits a pilot can have is the tendency to hold on to beliefs for no other reason than, "because I was taught that way". Having a CFI certificate does not preclude infallibility. They are human and subject to the same errors, false understandings, and ignorance as anybody else. If I heard a CFI say the exact things that were quoted in the previous post I responded to, I would look elsewhere for an instructor...trouble is, if he was my instructor, I would not yet have the knowledge to know the difference.

 

[nosehair]

OK, I'm not advocating doing all the PP training in a Cub.
You're right that most accidents are a result in flying faster than you can think ~ or simply getting in over your head in an endless variety of snowballing situations that do not really depend on 'stick' skillz'.

BUT...sometimes, it is stick skill, so why not be your best?

What I am saying is initial pilot training, ..or initial "effects of controls", or "how to control yaw with rudder, roll with aileron, and pitch with elevator".
Never mind throttle for this discussion.
But the first 4 or 5, or 8 or 10 hours, what ever it would take to get the idea that the "yoke" is not a "directional control".

Having a stick instead of a yoke does wonders for this. Besides the t/w, the stick, instead of a yoke, gives the new student a different control handle to learn.

A yoke, or wheel, provides the "negative transfer" of driving a car.

After 50 years of instructing, I can bet my money each time that an older person who has been driving a car for 20 or 30 years will not easily get over trying to "drive" the wheel, even when he/she is ready for the PP checkride, in most cases, he/she will still automatically turn the "wheel" when taxiing.

The brain is wired to turn a wheel, and the rudder input is always a microsecond later.

Young 16 year olds don't have this problem. They are teachable with a yoke, and will try to make the proper control inputs during landing, if it is taught ~ but as I have said, most instructors don't even know what I'm talking about when I say "sideload".

In practice. Oh, yeah, in theory, they know, and in extreme cases of sideload, they know, but the kind of sideload that would groundloop a t/w, the nosewheel instructor feels is "kinda ruff", but not actually dangerous. And it isn't. In that moment.

But it would be dangerous in a critical crosswind. And that is the point.

When you can land a t/w in a mild crosswind, you can handle a nosewheel in a much stronger crosswind.

Once the control input for the t/w is mastered in a mild x/wind, then training can, and should, progress to an airplane with more "systems" to learn and proceed to more "decision making" training, but to start with "systems" in an "easy-to-fly" airplane is not going to teach the basics, except for the exceptional student.

Keep in mind that all people are very different, and some people can and will learn very fine tuned control skill in a nosewheel. (about 20%)

Some people will never gain control of a t/w, and can only fly an easy-to-fly nosewheel, like a 172. (about 20%)

But most (about 60%) fall somewhere in the middle. We need to have something more than an instructor telling us to maintain the centerline. We need to actually have to because of nature- the t/w.

As far as safety in a Cub, or other t/w ~ the main reason students used to groundloop a t/w in the old days is mainly because of the rediculous mindset of soloing in minimum time. 8 hours was the goal.

That was started with the old WW II pilot training, when the Army Air Corps had to feed (train) thousands of pilots to the war.

Inept students were eliminated by establishing a minimum time to solo.
And the "tradition" hung on, to this day.

Well, that kind of training is not what the FOI talks about.
Matter of fact, most CFIs, flight schools, and the whole training philosophy kinda turns around the "Minimum FAA Requirements".

Wanna eat some food that has met "Minimum Food testing requirements" that equal the FAA's 'minimum requirements'?

Wanna send your daughter on a flight where the pilot has only met bare minimum requirements, and barely passed his checkride?

 

[Henning]

Find me data that suggests you're more likely to burn up in a J-3 than anything else. I've never heard of it, though I'm sure it's happened the same as any other plane.

You think? How about you call up the NTSB database and compare accidents and see how many were consumed in post crash fire. I just called up the record and there were 104 Js in accidents since the 60s and the large majority of the ones I went through included the phrase, "destroyed in post impact fire", then there is this joyous one:

The pilot desired to become an agricultural pilot and was practicing low passes over a field. The pilot failed to see three power transmission cables and the airplane struck a 300-foot-span of number 8 gauge copper conductor suspended about 45 to 50 feet above the ground with its propeller. An in-flight fire erupted in the cockpit area. The fire was located at a break in a fuel line from the fuel selector valve to the engine. The pilot suffered second and third degree burns to his face, arms, and left leg and landed the airplane hard, collapsing one of the main landing gear. He egressed the airplane unaided while the fire spread destroying the airplane. There was no evidence of mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane before the collision with power transmission cables.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain adequate obstacle clearance and his inadequate visual outlook.. Factors were a severed fuel line which resulted in an in-flight fire, which diminished the pilot's ability to land the airplane with smoke and fire in the cockpit.

This is the one that scares me, and it's not a lone result. I know plenty of old timers who witnessed this type of thing who won't get in a Cub. There's no real reason to still be using these planes in training, it's not sound risk management.

 

[RoscoeT]

You think? How about you call up the NTSB database and compare accidents and see how many were consumed in post crash fire. I just called up the record and there were 104 Js in accidents since the 60s and the large majority of the ones I went through included the phrase, "destroyed in post impact fire", then there is this joyous one:



This is the one that scares me, and it's not a lone result. I know plenty of old timers who witnessed this type of thing who won't get in a Cub. There's no real reason to still be using these planes in training, it's not sound risk management.

OK so I looked up the fatal accidents involving J-3's in the last 25 years, and all but one certainly would have killed those pilots even if there had been no post-impact fire...and the other one was questionable. Most were stall/spin scenarios (and not even all mentioned fire), one power line strike (fire), and one impact with trees on takeoff (no fire). Of those stall/spin crashes, most other planes would have caught fire as well. Why care if you burn if you're already dead? On the whole, seems the fuselage fuel in a J-3 is not something worth worrying too much about. Go just a little further back than this, and most fabric planes used nitrate dope, which is pretty much like covering an airplane with gasoline anyway.

 

[Henning]

OK so I looked up the fatal accidents involving J-3's in the last 25 years, and all but one certainly would have killed those pilots even if there had been no post-impact fire...and the other one was questionable. Most were stall/spin scenarios (and not even all mentioned fire), one power line strike (fire), and one impact with trees on takeoff (no fire). Of those stall/spin crashes, most other planes would have caught fire as well. Why care if you burn if you're already dead? On the whole, seems the fuselage fuel in a J-3 is not something worth worrying too much about. Go just a little further back than this, and most fabric planes used nitrate dope, which is pretty much like covering an airplane with gasoline anyway.

Exactly, and we don't do that anymore either unless we're dealing with museum pieces. There are things we have learned through experience that we just don't do anymore.