Would you choose to learn to fly in a tailwheel aircraft?

DanWilkins said:
Well said. Many grass fields were big squares with a wind sock in the middle. Pilots could always take off and land into the wind.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and even the runways that were paved were laid out in isosceles triangles with very wide runways so you never saw more than a 20-30 degree x-wind.
 
weilke said:
I thought this thread was about doing your primary training in a conventional gear aircraft, not about obtaining the endorsement later on.

Cost is going to be related to insurance, and then of course there is the availability of a TW instructor. If a flight school has both, a insurance and a long-term instructor willing to do primary instruction in a conventional gear aicraft, then this would be the way to go if one is interested in flying a TW aircraft down the line.
Knew a kid from rural ND whose goal in life was to be an aerial applicator. He bought a Champ on his 16th birthday. I think the first tricyle plane he ever flew was when he had to rent an Arrow to get his limited commercial. If you start your primary training in a TW aicraft, you are going to get to insurance minimums faster than with the detour through trycicle gear aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how the thread started. Heck, I started it. So, on that note, get a buddy to teach the rudiments in a champ and then take lessons in a 172. Total cost for 10 hours in a champ could be as little a few cases of beer. I did that with my nephew and he is grateful for the wonderful introduction to flying. Now he has several tickets and works in the aviation industry. I even let him fly my Waco...with me up front.
 
My wise and old original flight instructor once said that one should take advantage of all opportunities to fly different types of aircraft. Once we learned how to fly a 172 (in the college senior ROTC program), we would go back to the old Raleigh airport where we had met and become friends with the FBO. We would wash and wax airplanes in order to get some flying time in exchange. Then he would check us out in some different airplanes like the aeronca chief, later the super cub not to mention early pipers including the commanche. Never regretted learning to fly taildraggers in the process. Many years later, had an opportunity to fly a bird I always wanted to, the venerable T-6. Checked out in a Citabria first and then flew the T-6 later that day. This was many years after my Air Force days in T-33, F-102 and F-84F (antique) aircraft.
 
Concur with Fearless. My dad had initial training in an Aeronca during "Pre-Flight" before they moved to Primary in Stearmans. He said that was pretty normal. I've talked to a number of guys who went through USAAF/USAF flight training after WWII when training began in T-6s. They all related a high washout rate and most said they all went to local civilian schools and got some tailwheel time in Cubs and Super Cubs to help them get a handle on tailwheels before they really felt okay in the T-6.

A Stearman is like flying a big Cub, until in a crosswind and on pavement and then it can get damned exciting really fast.

I'm not sure that many Primary Training Fields were all grass in the USAAF, but they did typically have 3-4 runways which allowed for much better alignment into the wind. Not sure about Navy primary fields, but their outlying fields were "Wagon wheel" configurations with three different runway orientations. Some were grass some were paved.

Airfields_TN_W_htm_72c977f6.jpg
 
N3368K said:
Not sure about Navy primary fields
Click to expand...

Several Navy WWII primary fields are near me.

Some had four short runways, arranged in a square. The wind determined which were active. Two parallel runways were used simultaneously, one with right pattern, the other left. A lot of operations could be flown in a day with that setup.

At least one of these square airports is still in use. KOOA Oskaloosa, Iowa. Take a look at a satellite photo. In modern times they closed two of the four runways, and extended one that survived.

A closed square Naval airfield nearby was used as a site for a high school. https://oppositelock.kinja.com/when-your-high-schools-parking-lot-is-a-runway-1790749961
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
At least one of these square airports is still in use. KOOA Oskaloosa, Iowa. Take a look at a satellite photo. In modern times they closed two of the four runways, and extended one that survived.

A closed square Naval airfield nearby was used as a site for a high school. https://oppositelock.kinja.com/when-your-high-schools-parking-lot-is-a-runway-1790749961
Click to expand...

Very cool. Thanks for sharing. I love seeing old fields and how they have either survived or been repurposed. The former Memphis/Millington Naval Outlying Field I mentioned was an RC flying club site for years. At only 1500' I suppose it was considered too short for a public airport.
 
KONZ was, at one time, the U.S. Naval Air Station, Grosse Ile - Triangular arrangement (one of the original runways is now taxiway A) and a paved circle in the center. George H.W. Bush was one of the people that trained there, and, at one point a pilot lost in the fog hit the steeple of a local church and ended up bailing out - the church has the D-handle from the chute on display. (FWIW)
Originally, it was a Curtis-Wright flying school - big round grass field with a perimeter road.
 
If the pilot was low enough to hit a steeple and bail out, did he survive? Or, how high is the steeple? :D
 
Stan Cooper said:
No. The only reason to have initial training in a taildragger today is for bragging rights ("Real pilots fly taildraggers"). The whole meme about the only way to learn how to use the rudder is by learning in a conventional geared airplane is B.S.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about this. I was tempted (still in early stages of training) to ask about flying tail draggers. My thought was since it seems more demanding, it would be easier to go over to trigear. Going the other way is more demanding and by then I thought I might have habits on landing that I would have to relearn and correct.

Right now I think trigear is demanding enough though. Also, am I wrong, or do tail draggers often have much less instruments on board?
 
LongRoadBob said:
I was wondering about this. I was tempted (still in early stages of training) to ask about flying tail draggers. My thought was since it seems more demanding, it would be easier to go over to trigear. Going the other way is more demanding and by then I thought I might have habits on landing that I would have to relearn and correct.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. Unfortunately I'm already very far along learning on nosewheel, and I already did something similar (yet opposite) by switching from 172's to SR20's.

LongRoadBob said:
Right now I think trigear is demanding enough though.
Click to expand...

My theory is that they're all equally demanding. At any given point in the training you do as much as you're able to handle and then add new tasks as you're able to. If you start in a taildragger you might spend more time on taxi/takeoffs/landings earlier in the training and take longer to get to radio work, cross-country planning, or whatever.

LongRoadBob said:
Also, am I wrong, or do tail draggers often have much less instruments on board?
Click to expand...

Some can have pretty modern cockpits. I came across the X Cub recently which looks pretty sweet :)

WEB_XCub_G3XTouch_%28CubCrafters%29.jpg.8589372.jpg
 
LongRoadBob said:
I was wondering about this. I was tempted (still in early stages of training) to ask about flying tail draggers. My thought was since it seems more demanding, it would be easier to go over to trigear. Going the other way is more demanding and by then I thought I might have habits on landing that I would have to relearn and correct.

Right now I think trigear is demanding enough though. Also, am I wrong, or do tail draggers often have much less instruments on board?[/QUO

For me bragging rights is part of the reason I fly TW planes.

I found flying a taildragger more demanding than flying a tricycle gear plane.

For me, there is more to flying a tailwheel plane than just the ground handling. Many older tailwheel planes do not have flaps and are really pretty simple to operate. I would rather fly an airplane that is closer to lawn-mower technology than space-age technology. Again, these are what fits me. And, I know who I am.
Click to expand...
 
I started in a Cub. After I soloed, I started getting lessons in a Cherokee. It would be nearly impossible to take the check ride in the Cub, since it has no gyro instruments and the test includes some maneuvers under the hood. But I can say that learning how to fly in a plane with lots of adverse yaw, conventional landing gear, and no instruments beyond those legally required for VFR day flight was a ton of fun and has made adjusting to other planes really easy.

You will get mixed opinions about whether starting out in a tail dragger has any benefits. But I doubt that you’ll ever find a pilot who regrets having actually done it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top