When the wimpiness started

Matthew said:
Cubs are easy to land, too.
Click to expand...

It really is that easy! It has to be, *I* did it. It's the taxi part that takes a while to learn, and yeah crosswind and gusts, but it lands easy, no joking or sarcasm. My favorite part is the POH. (Hint - no poh.)
 
Half Fast said:
The first few schools to start advertising low-cost pilot certificates, with no medical required, might crack open a new market.
Click to expand...
I don't see that that happening. At least not significantly so. I don't see the cost delta for operating a flight school being that much different for a school using 172's vs an LSA. Overhead is still going to be roughly the same. Instructor, maintenance, insurance etc. Purchase a new LSA or a used 172 is a push. Maybe it burns a few gallons less per hour?

Maybe I'm just being glass half full.
 
Racerx said:
Maybe I'm just being glass half full.
Click to expand...

No, we're just imagining different glasses.

I'm thinking of an existing flight school, which already owns 172s or PA28s, being able to add a lower-price training option. All schools have students drop out due to funding limitations, and all schools have somebody who phones or looks at their website, seeking pricing information, then decides learning to fly is too expensive. MOSAIC and SP give these schools another tool to fix these cost problems, and potentially bring in more students and give existing students a lower cost way to finish up.
 
Half Fast said:
No, we're just imagining different glasses.

I'm thinking of an existing flight school, which already owns 172s or PA28s, being able to add a lower-price training option. All schools have students drop out due to funding limitations, and all schools have somebody who phones or looks at their website, seeking pricing information, then decides learning to fly is too expensive. MOSAIC and SP give these schools another tool to fix these cost problems, and potentially bring in more students and give existing students a lower cost way to finish up.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m just not seeing where the cost savings is especially with mosaic now including pa28’s and 172’s. How much cheaper would it be to train SP on an hourly basis? 30 bucks an hour? Sure it adds up but I don’t think it’s enough to quit if your heart is truly in it.

I’ve actually wondered if an enterprising individual could have a regular flight school with maintenance begin to include A&P classes to build something like an rv12… which are then used for flight training.

I do know a local high school near BUU offered a stem program where students built an rv12 then some would go on and use it for training.

I know money is major factor in drop out. For others it’s an excuse. My sister was learning in my Cherokee. Home drome is 40x3200 and a fruit roll up runway. She didn’t even have 10 hours. She was able to land at a much nicer airport, but claims she couldn’t at home. Her flight instructor disputes this. Then she claims it was too expensive. Really it was “landing is hard” and psyched herself out. Money was just an excuse. Her head wasn’t in it. Didn’t study. Things became overwhelming and was unprepared for lessons. And that’s just fine. But it wasn’t really about money. More of an asterisk.
 
Racerx said:
How much cheaper would it be to train SP on an hourly basis?
Click to expand...

Same price per hour, but fewer hours are required for SP than for PP so total cost to a certificate is less. Theoretically, SP is half the hours, but more realistically it’s probably about 2/3.
 
Half Fast said:
Same price per hour, but fewer hours are required for SP than for PP so total cost to a certificate is less. Theoretically, SP is half the hours, but more realistically it’s probably about 2/3.
Click to expand...
I just don’t see that delta making a difference. When I hear people using the money as an excuse i typically think younger people with airline aspirations. When I hear sport pilot I think middle age want to fly for fun, which typically means enough disposable income that 1.5 amu’s isn’t going to be a deal breaker.
 
172andyou said:
Yeah, agreed. Piston singles were in the perfect storm of forces working against them. At the end of the day, they end up being practical only for a narrow range of maybe 200 - 600 miles. Something like that. Anything less and you're better off driving. Anything more and you're better off catching a commercial flight. And you have to have want to travel 200-600 miles often enough to justify the plane.

So, we end up with a market for piston singles being nearly exclusively for impractical owners. That's a small market.
Click to expand...
That's only true if you're thinking of buying a plane for practical transportation. I bought each of my planes just because I wanted to fly them. There is no practical range for a Pitts S2A, but dang I liked flying that puppy when I owned a share in it! Lots of big purchases are like this. Boats aren't practical additions to our motorized fleets, but lots get sold and played with each year. Heck, I flew my current plane (a Maule MX7-180C) all the way to Maryland from Washington State last summer. Yes, it was a lot more expensive than buying a commercial ticket, but I had enough fun and an overwhelming sense of adventure that it was more than worthwhile for me. Businesses need to perform cost/benefit analyses on their aircraft purchases, but private ownership of an airplane is more often focused on the passion the pilot has for aviation.
 
Pipers can be driven, too. It's not restricted to 172s.

 
Domenick said:
Well, hell. After this I'm ready for my tailwheel endorsement!
Click to expand...
That ad has some truth to it. When it came out, taildraggers were more common. And they do require more handling skill during takeoff and landing. So a nose-dragger, being more forgiving of poor technique and skill, would be "land-o-matic" in comparison.
 
Steamflyer said:
Actually, personally think the list price of a Cessna is a decent stand-in for the true rate of inflation in the US since they are entirely US built,
Click to expand...
Many airframe components are built in Mexico. If they were all US-built, the price would be higher.

Flyhound said:
car gas and power costs have stayed closer to the 470% increase in the COL index,
Click to expand...

I pumped gas in 1970 at C$.50 per Imperial gallon. Now we pay, in Canada, an average of around C$1.35 per litre or more. That's C$6.08 per gallon, or over 12 times as much, meaning 1100 percent inflation, and it wasn't all due to the 1973 gas shortages.

Our dollar is worth about $.70 US now. Our Imperial gallon is 6/5 the size of a US gallon. Working it out, that's about US$7.24 per US gallon. Lots of taxes.

Houses here cost at least 12 times what they did in 1976. Supply and demand are way out of balance, and low mortgage rates increase the number of eligible buyers.
 
You're all wimps.

My plane doesn't have bungee cords, oleos, scissors, "Land-A-Matic" gear, or any of that wimpy stuff. My landing gear is as the gods intended; solid, unmoving, with nothing but a nickel's worth of Goodyear's best and a few puffs of air to decide whether fillings-stay-in or fillings-pop-out.
1768338333532.png
Ron "Why does my back hurt?" Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
You're all wimps.

My plane doesn't have bungee cords, oleos, scissors, "Land-A-Matic" gear, or any of that wimpy stuff. My landing gear is as the gods intended; solid, unmoving, with nothing but a nickel's worth of Goodyear's best and a few puffs of air to decide whether fillings-stay-in or fillings-pop-out.

Ron "Why does my back hurt?" Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I think you indirectly answered the OP's question. We became wimps when they started paving runways.

There's no substitute for grass... The landing on kind.
 
Albany Tom said:
There's no substitute for grass... The landing on kind.
Click to expand...

The photo I posted earlier was flying off a turf field. I had wheel pants and smaller tires but the larger tires (sans pants) are much better on the grass. Got a bit larger tailwheel on the way too ...
 
Those tail dragged are so cool most aircraft manufactures no long make em. Maybe there is a reason for that.
 
Clip4 said:
Those tail dragged are so cool most aircraft manufactures no long make em. Maybe there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
They don’t make ‘59 eldorados anymore either, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t kick but in being awesome (I’m biased, my primary training was in a late ‘40’s aeronca champ, it took me seemingly forever to get high cross wind wheel landings down. Touching the up wind wheel… I won’t waste time in the rest. I was over thinking it, when I finally relaxed and just “felt” the airplane it was like a cartoon light bulb turning on over my head. Looking back I would not have changed a thing, I’m darn grateful I had had the chance to first solo in a “taildragger”.
 
Clip4 said:
Those tail dragged are so cool most aircraft manufactures no long make em. Maybe there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Yes, Cessna, Piper, Cirrus and Beech don't. Mooney is out of business. But American Champion, Aviat, Maule, and Pacific Aerospace are making taildraggers. And they sell what they make. Cessna isn't selling many singles at all anymore.

ANd those are just the ones I can think of. I imagine that there are some European makes building a few taildraggers.

Edit: Let's add Carbon Cub (Cubcrafters) to the list of current taildragger manufacturers.

Another edit. Wiki has this list:

1768433434045.png

They must have taken just US manufacturers (missing the Pacific Aerospace Found-based airplanes). But they still missed the Aviat Eagle, and Aviat also builds the Pitts aerobatic series.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Where is that?
Click to expand...
I think...Sullivan Lake WA, 09S.

I guessed his last picture, not that I am stalking him around the PNW or anything... :). Both places on my Bucket list, but haven't been yet. The other is Alvord Desert.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yes, Cessna, Piper, Cirrus and Beech don't. Mooney is out of business. But American Champion, Aviat, Maule, and Pacific Aerospace are making taildraggers. And they sell what they make. Cessna isn't selling many singles at all anymore.

ANd those are just the ones I can think of. I imagine that there are some European makes building a few taildraggers.

Edit: Let's add Carbon Cub (Cubcrafters) to the list of current taildragger manufacturers.

Another edit. Wiki has this list:

View attachment 149001

They must have taken just US manufacturers (missing the Pacific Aerospace Found-based airplanes). But they still missed the Aviat Eagle, and Aviat also builds the Pitts aerobatic series.
Click to expand...
Cessna, the people you say don’t sell many airplanes these days, sold 186 172s amd 182s in 2024. Piper sold 291 Archers and production is sold out for 3 years. Cirrus the same year sold 630 SR20 and 22s. All the tail dragger manufactures combined sell maybe 200 in a good year. Why, low demand.
 
Last edited:
Taildraggers will teach lateral axis alignment and control. Spend ten hours in one in a decent crosswind on a paved runway and subsequent nosedragger landings in even higher crosswinds will become far more polished. Similarly, a bit of tailwheel time before tackling the multi will make failed engine detection trivial.

They are at home on grass, on small and rough strips, anywhere where prop clearance really matters, Most proficient light taildragger pilots find any runway greater than about 800-1200' a "long" runway. But they have a low wing loading and airfoils generally designed for low speed lift over speed. So they all cruise around 100 mph +/-. Many people with a taildragger have an ordinary airplane for traveling if they need to go anywhere beyond whatever 60 nm radius beautiful country they enjoy with the taildragger.

Oh, and they are far prettier on the ground. Huge plus. They look like they want to fly at rest.
 
Dan Thomas said:
They must have taken just US manufacturers (missing the Pacific Aerospace Found-based airplanes). But they still missed the Aviat Eagle, and Aviat also builds the Pitts aerobatic series.
Click to expand...
Aviat doesn't have the rights to the Eagle II kit anymore. The number of Pitts produced lately is probably a low single digit number.
Game Composites GB1 GameBird, built in Bentonville, AR has sold pretty well the last few years.
There are a lot of tailwheel RVs around. Much prettier than the nosedragger variants.
 
Clip4 said:
Cessna, the people you say don’t sell many airplanes these days, sold 186 172s amd 182s in 2024. Piper sold 291 Archers and production is sold out for 3 years. Cirrus the same year sold 630 SR20 and 22s. All the tail dragger manufactures combined sell maybe 200 in a good year. Why, low demand.
Click to expand...
So the total taildragger production exceeds current annual 172 and 182 production combined, and the 172 was the most-produced aircraft in history. The 172M, probably the most popular, was produced between 1973 and 1976, and 6826 of them were built, an average of 1706 per year, almost ten times the current number of 172s AND 182s.
 
Last edited:
Spinka said:
Aviat doesn't have the rights to the Eagle II kit anymore. The number of Pitts produced lately is probably a low single digit number.
Game Composites GB1 GameBird, built in Bentonville, AR has sold pretty well the last few years.
There are a lot of tailwheel RVs around. Much prettier than the nosedragger variants.
Click to expand...
SO the Eagle is no more. Not even the certified models. But the Zivko Edge 540 is still here, and so is the (German0built) Extra 330. Both taildraggers.

RVs aren't certified airplanes.
 
Steamflyer said:
They are at home on grass, on small and rough strips, anywhere where prop clearance really matters, Most proficient light taildragger pilots find any runway greater than about 800-1200' a "long" runway. But they have a low wing loading and airfoils generally designed for low speed lift over speed. So they all cruise around 100 mph +/-. Many people with a taildragger have an ordinary airplane for traveling if they need to go anywhere beyond whatever 60 nm radius beautiful country they enjoy with the taildragger.
Click to expand...
There are many Cessna 180s and 185s. They do not have low wing loadings. They have really decent cruise speeds, lacking the drag of a nosewheel.

185 numbers:

1768496595807.png
 
Ed Haywood said:
Where is that?
Click to expand...
Sullivan Lake in Washington State. The airport (09S) is right next to a state park. There are fire rings and bear boxes for storing food for aircraft parked and camping there. It is by far my favorite spot for airplane camping.
 
Dan Thomas said:
SO the Eagle is no more. Not even the certified models. But the Zivko Edge 540 is still here, and so is the (German0built) Extra 330. Both taildraggers.

RVs aren't certified airplanes.
Click to expand...
I just mentioned the RVs because the Eagle was brought up and the Eagle was never certified either. You can still buy a kit from https://christenindustries.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top