When to Begin Tailwheel Training?

E

eventualpilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
104
Location
US
Display Name
Display name:
eventualpilot
I’m a newly certificated private pilot with about 80 hours (all in a variety of Cessna 152s).

I am interested in getting my tailwheel endorsement as there is a local flying club (composed primarily of tail wheel aircraft) with very low wet rental rates.

What is the best time/experience level to start tail wheel training?
 
Last edited:
Prior to being PIC in a tailwheel :)

There's no reason you can do so now. People have actually managed to get their private in tailwheel aircraft.

Remember all that stuff your instructor told you about climbing-into/diving-away while taxiing and rudder use on takeoff. Brush up on that and get an instructor and go fly!
 
Today.

Bob Gardner
 
I had over 30 hours in tailwheel before I got my 150. My flight school focuses on sport pilots training, but makes all PPL students train in a tailwheel first.
 
Whenever you can afford it. Some say you should learn to fly a tail wheel first.
 
Never too early.

I had one student seek me out to get his private in my Citabria. I think tailwheel first is a good way to go.

It was funny watching him transition later to a nosewheel, though - he'd really tense up when the nose came down!
 
I had my tailwheel endorsement four days, I think, after my private pilot checkride. Go for it!
 
eventualpilot said:
What is the best time/experience level to start tail wheel training?
Click to expand...

Every day you keep flying those 152s is just that much more ingraining of habits that is occuring, which will increase the unlearning process that must happen when you do the tailwheel transition. The earlier the better. You never have too little experience to start tailwheel training. Some people even learned to fly in tailwheel airplanes. :)
 
About 80 hours ago would have been best. Failing that, today would be second best.

It's not like it's hard - all you have to do is look out the window and use your feet to keep the airplane straight.

But those are the two things that many people don't seem to bother to do.

It seems that (at least some) people (in my experience) are fascinated by the panel - they want to look at oil pressure gauges, air speed indicators, and who knows what else - instead of looking out the window. But, ain't nothing on the panel going to help you keep it straight. On the other hand, it is good to know that you had good oil pressure when you took out that runway light.

Once your feet get edgeamacated you can afford the quick glance down to check things, but until then, eyes out - 100%. Resist the urge to look down at the ASI.
 
Now! Before the very low wet rental rates dry up.

It's not hard at all, just something different that will make you a better stick and rudder pilot no matter what you fly.
 
I got my private in an aeronca champ. It's a wonderful way to learn how to control any airplane, in the air or on the ground. I would finish my training in the Citabria. You'll appreciate that you did it later on.


Stearman- built like a truck, flys like a dream.
 
1936 would be my suggestion.
 
RoscoeT said:
Well it flies a bit truck-like too...but a fun truck. Actually, it flies just like a bigger, heavier J-3.
Click to expand...

Actually......a Stearman and a J3 have little in common. They are very different to fly and especially to land. The Stearmans gear is narrow, it's much higher off the ground, much more horsepower and a lot easier to ground loop. I've owned both and flown both a lot. Very little in common. Especially in landing and in a cross wind very different.
 
Thanks for all of the information.

The flight school where I plan to get the tailwheel endorsement has a J-3 Cub and a Citabria. Any advantages for one over the other?
 
I'd start with whichever is cheaper and then get checked out in the other one.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Actually......a Stearman and a J3 have little in common. They are very different to fly and especially to land. The Stearmans gear is narrow, it's much higher off the ground, much more horsepower and a lot easier to ground loop. I've owned both and flown both a lot. Very little in common. Especially in landing and in a cross wind very different.
Click to expand...

Well I thought the characteristics were very similar. I've only flown Stearmans off grass. Flown Cubs off grass and pavement. I thought the Stearman landed a lot like a Cub - both have very similar and balanced aileron/rudder harmony. Many airplanes are imbalanced. Both slip really well. Stearman has more drag. Both airplanes sit very near stall attitude 3pt, meaning you get the stick all the way back to 3-point. Wing loading feels similar. Of course Stearman has more power, but the power/weight loading is about the same. So is climb performance. I thought the Stearman was easier to land though, since those oleo struts suck up everything up. I've never been in a situation to battle swerves on pavement in a Stearman. On grass, you can practically take your feet off the rudder and close your eyes on takeoff and landing. Super easy - much like a Cub. Of course they are different airplanes, but the Stearman sure did feel a whole lot like a big heavy J-3 to me.
 
RoscoeT said:
Well I thought the characteristics were very similar. I've only flown Stearmans off grass. Flown Cubs off grass and pavement. I thought the Stearman landed a lot like a Cub - both have very similar and balanced aileron/rudder harmony. Many airplanes are imbalanced. Both slip really well. Stearman has more drag. Both airplanes sit very near stall attitude 3pt, meaning you get the stick all the way back to 3-point. Wing loading feels similar. Of course Stearman has more power, but the power/weight loading is about the same. So is climb performance. I thought the Stearman was easier to land though, since those oleo struts suck up everything up. I've never been in a situation to battle swerves on pavement in a Stearman. On grass, you can practically take your feet off the rudder and close your eyes on takeoff and landing. Super easy - much like a Cub. Of course they are different airplanes, but the Stearman sure did feel a whole lot like a big heavy J-3 to me.
Click to expand...
I think your statement that the two fly alike is due to your experience which appears to be limited. In a cross wind, in a Stearman is anything but super easy due to its high gear. The " oleo struts" do nothing to help. On pavement, the Stearman or the cub is easy provided......you've flown them a lot. You apparently have not. Take your feet off the rudders on a Stearman and your asking for big trouble. But......I give you the last word due to boredom.
 
I had to wait until I was 15 because I couldn't get a student pilot permit when I was 14. Seriously, back in the 60's most of us learned to fly in a Cub or a Champ, it ain't no big deal.

As for choice between the J3 and the Citabria I'd say go for the J3 since you rarely see them for rent whereas you can always find a Citabria. That is providing of course that you can fit in the thing.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
I think your statement that the two fly alike is due to your experience which appears to be limited. In a cross wind, in a Stearman is anything but super easy due to its high gear. The " oleo struts" do nothing to help. On pavement, the Stearman or the cub is easy provided......you've flown them a lot. You apparently have not. Take your feet off the rudders on a Stearman and your asking for big trouble. But......I give you the last word due to boredom.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I made your chest feel less hairy by comparing a Stearman to a lowly J-3. ;) I said they fly very similarly, not that they handle on the ground identically. A 2000 lb. airplane is not going to handle on the ground identically to a 700 lb plane...not to mention the completely different landing gear design. As mentioned, I've only flown Stearmans off grass without significant wind. In those conditions, it was the easiest takeoff and landing tailwheel airplane I've ever flown. Almost no input required. I'm sure they are different on pavement in lots of wind.
 
eventualpilot said:
Thanks for all of the information.

The flight school where I plan to get the tailwheel endorsement has a J-3 Cub and a Citabria. Any advantages for one over the other?
Click to expand...
It depends on if you want to see more peripheral stuff from the get go, or learn that later. If you fly the Citabria, you'll probably be a little more comfortable at first being able to see over the nose.
 
The original answer: YESTERDAY would have been the best time to get your tailwheel!

I would recommend choosing the aircraft with the best visibility in landing configuration would be your best place to start. Seeing over MOST of the nose on takeoff will make you feel more comfortable. Once you're confident with tailwheel, you can transition to other high nose aircraft.

An interesting experiment I conducted was when we put bushwheels on our taildragger for off airport operations. A ton of the visibility was lost - you get used to it quickly, but you have to have a better sense of feel and spatial position when you can't see over the nose on three point landings, taxiing, and takeoff.

BUT, if your only choice is a low visibility taildragger then just have confidence you'll get the feel of it - most of OUR instructors all learned on taildraggers first - they did just fine didn't they??? :)

~Brendan
 
Depends if the Tailwheel plane is aerobatic. If it is, you might as well get the endorsement with 10 hrs of aerobatics lessons as well. The TW endorsement doesn't teach **** about control and energy management compared to a few hours of aerobatics.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
It's not like it's hard - all you have to do is look out the window and use your feet to keep the airplane straight.
Click to expand...

I did not have a problem with stricter directional control, or not a big problem at any rate. However, it turned out that flaring in tailwheel was a critical skill. What's interesting, my instructor signed my endorsement without realizing that I did not know what I was doing. I went through the motions in his airplane to an acceptable standard enough to fool him and myself. In my own airplane, however, I had to discover it all again by trial and error. In the end I learned landing a tailwheel airplane by watching Cub videos on Youtube and then reproducing what I saw in them.
 
Henning said:
Depends if the Tailwheel plane is aerobatic. If it is, you might as well get the endorsement with 10 hrs of aerobatics lessons as well. The TW endorsement doesn't teach **** about control and energy management compared to a few hours of aerobatics.
Click to expand...

I would suggest just the opposite. A Citabria DOES teach exactly what henning claims it does not. Get twenty- thirty hours in a Citabria 150 and you'll see what I mean. Few care to go on to aerobatic training but it's always available if you care to. Just getting checked out in a taildragger is only the beginning. It's always experience that counts.cross winds, short field take offs, slips, on and on. 30 hours would be a minimum.
 
Last edited:
Found a local school that specializes in tailwheel training and I plan to start next weekend.

Just need to decide on J-3 Cub or Citabria 7ECA.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
7ECA for sure. ( I've owned both.)
Click to expand...

Why "for sure"? :confused: I disagree. IMO, the J-3 is a better tailwheel trainer. It is lighter, with more rigid gear, less forgiving, and actually requires learning to use some peripheral vision on t/o and landing, which will serve the student well in many other tailwheel airplanes. The Citabria has way too much forward visibility and is so easy to handle that it should be illegal to log tailwheel time. That's a slight exaggeration of course, but it's not far off. ;)
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I would suggest just the opposite. A Citabria DOES teach exactly what henning claims it does not. Get twenty- thirty hours in a Citabria 150 and you'll see what I mean. Few care to go on to aerobatic training but it's always available if you care to. Just getting checked out in a taildragger is only the beginning. It's always experience that counts.cross winds, short field take offs, slips, on and on. 30 hours would be a minimum.
Click to expand...

If that's all you learn in a Citabria, you haven't begun to learn what the plane can teach. BTW, as a Tailwheel trainer, the Citabria is poor as it is the most docile Tailwheel out there.
 
eventualpilot said:
Found a local school that specializes in tailwheel training and I plan to start next weekend.

Just need to decide on J-3 Cub or Citabria 7ECA.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter that much, pick the one that you like the most, or fits your budget. Both planes will be fun and teach you the basics of tailwheel flying.
After a few hours, you can always transfer to the back seat of the 7ECA for extra fun.
 
Henning said:
BTW, as a Tailwheel trainer, the Citabria is poor as it is the most docile Tailwheel out there.
Click to expand...

Funny, I think the Champ/Citabria is a really good tailwheel transition airplane for most meat-footed tricycle gear pilots for just the same reason.
 
hook_dupin said:
Funny, I think the Champ/Citabria is a really good tailwheel transition airplane for most meat-footed tricycle gear pilots for just the same reason.
Click to expand...

If it never bites at them, it doesn't train them for much. You get out of a Citabria and into a Pawnee, you'll get your eyes opened; you get into a Cessna 188 and your gonna get your tail handed to you.
 
I agree with Henning 100%. The J3 is a much better trainer as it will get you looking out to the sides of the airplane on landing and using the edges of the runway to gauge height and drift. Another bonus is not having a ball to look at will quickly get you using your butt to feel you are coordinated. Getting your T/W endorsement is not about how quick you can get it but learning good T/W technique. I have several hundred hours in a J3, almost all the models of Citabria and I still fly a 7AC Champ every once in a while. I learned in a Great Lakes and it really gave me the good training that made it easy to transition into other more demanding tailwheel airplanes. Don
 
Henning said:
If that's all you learn in a Citabria, you haven't begun to learn what the plane can teach. BTW, as a Tailwheel trainer, the Citabria is poor as it is the most docile Tailwheel out there.
Click to expand...

Obvious at times you aren't well versed on taildraggers. A Citabria 150 hp or an 7 ac is a great way to train." Easy, " only if you fly it in ideal conditions which is not the way to train or learn. I have over 3500 hours in all kinds of taildraggers. If you can fly a 65 hp champ WELL, you can transition to most anything. The only reason the cub ever enjoyed its reputation was that piper had lots of money from the oil business and contacts in govt. During WW2. Personally I think it's a lousy trainer. Cramped front seat, back seat has very poor visibility and it's grossly underpowered. I transitioned easily from a champ to a Stearman, 180 Cessna, mooney, etc. trying for the last word on every occasion usually doesn't hold up as in this case.
 
eventualpilot said:
I’m a newly certificated private pilot with about 80 hours (all in a variety of Cessna 152s).

I am interested in getting my tailwheel endorsement as there is a local flying club (composed primarily of tail wheel aircraft) with very low wet rental rates.

What is the best time/experience level to start tail wheel training?
Click to expand...
If this local flying club has tailwheel aircraft for rent and a qualified instructor the time to start would be as soon as you can schedule it with the instructor. There's no reason to wait.

later edit;
oops, I didn't read all the posts before I replied :redface: Anyway.....if the rates are the same for the J-3 vs the Citabria I'd say choose the Citabria, mostly because the J-3 is a little underpowered and cramped for two big guys.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
Obvious at times you aren't well versed on taildraggers.

...trying for the last word on every occasion usually doesn't hold up as in this case.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2: You're equating your arrogance with fact.

Jimmy cooper said:
I think it's a lousy trainer. Cramped front seat, back seat has very poor visibility and it's grossly underpowered.
Click to expand...

Cramped front seat has nothing to do with it being a lousy trainer. The student flies from the rear. I'm well over 6' tall and have no problem sitting in the front of a J-3 for a typical training flight. If you're a fat-ass wimp, then maybe tailwheel instructing isn't for you in the first place. ;)

Poor back seat visibility is a plus, IMO - as well as many others. Forces use of peripheral vision. And BTW, the rear seat of a Cub, even with someone in the front, still has better visibility than biplanes - Stearmans, Pitts types, etc.

As far as it being "grossly" underpowered, a 65 hp Champ is more underpowered than a 65 hp J-3. A 7ECA is barely any better. Not sure where you're getting the "grossly" underpowered idea from.

Your opinion is not fact. There are plenty of way more experienced TW pilots and instructors than you who feel a J-3 is a better trainer. In the end, it's all opinion...regardless. You need to realize that.
 
Better in this case is a matter of preference and opinion... and reflects on the instructor's priorities as well as the student. I'd personally choose the J-3 over the Citabria, but I've had students who might have done better in the Citabria because they mentally refused to adapt to the Cub.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top