Learning in a Cessna vs. a Taylorcraft taildragger
jim needham
> which is a taildragger. The instructor told me that the Taylorcraft is
> more difficult to learn in and may take longer, but that I would probably pick
> up better habbits than I would in a Cessna. He seems to think it should be
> relatively easy to transition toa nosewheel plane afterwards, that it would be
> more difficult to transition to a taildragger from a nosewheel plane.
Well, I learned in a 172. Then I took acro lessons in a Decathalon 8KCAB. It
is a taildragger, high wing, 150 HP, constant speed prop with out flaps, fabric
covered plane with the student/solo pilot infront, instructor/passenger inback.
I had about 90 hours in 172s and soloed the Dcath in 6.9 hours and 11 landings.
In the first 3.8 hours we mostly did arco and 3 landings, then we concentrated
on landing/takeoffs. 2.1 hours and 9 bumps and jumps latter I was signed off.
The hardest thing for me to learn was to USE those rudder peddles. Yes, I used
them in the 172, but mostly for slips. I love to slip to landings, much to
the chagrin of a few of my instructors. In a taildragger you really have to
use the rudder in both the landing AND the takeoff !
The scariest thing was to push foward on the stick as the plane started to
accellerate. I was sure that I was going to nose the thing over.
So I guess that if you plan to fly planes with the third wheel in the "correct"
place you could learn in the Cessna but make sure that your instructor teaches
you to how to use the rudder correctly. It would be ideal if your instructor
will be the same one who will transition you to the taildragger. If not, one
who at least knows how to fly the things. Note that most younger instructors
have never even flown in one. Not their fault, not to many of them puppies
around these days.
Out of the 8 or so instructors that I went through, a couple of them were
excellent and taugh acro and taildragger techniques. Also a couple of them
were shit heads.
In my opinion, and we all know about opinions.
Summery: Nose wheel - easier to learn
easier to learn bad habbits
THEN harder to transition to tail wheel
Tail wheel - harder to learn
easier to transition to nose wheel
> I'm going to get an introductory flight in both planes back to back to
Sounds like fun to me, I would like to fly a Taylercraft !!
Jim Needham RANS S-10 N201S 617 981-2535
PS Please, no flames about slips in Cessnas, read the POH, do them with a
competent instructor to see how the best handles.
Mike E. Ciholas
> one question I would ask- is the T-craft certified for intentional
> spins? the Cessnoid is, and you need that training.
Surely, it is, since Duane Cole does aerobatics in it! I would suspect that
the T-craft is a very good spinning airplane (i.e., no funny behaviour) since
it is closely related to the J-3 (and we all heard stories about what a good
airplane that was (okay, still is!)).
My personal reccomendation is to get your private in a taildragger. You
WILL LEARN HOW TO USE THE RUDDER! Some people who fly nosedraggers do learn
how, but a lot don't. It depends on how picky the instructor is (or even
whether he knows or not :-( ). Almost anybody who flies a taildragger can
fly a nosedragger, not the other way around. I know of no taildragger pilot
who is afraid to fly nosewheel, but vice versa, there are plenty!
My analogy for the uninitiated: tailwheel = manual transmission, nosewheel =
automatic.
Mike Ciholas
email: mi...@ai.mit.edu
snail: 289 Highland Ave, #108/Somerville, MA 02144
phone: (617) 623-3563
air: N1909C, 1954 Cessna 170B
Paul Stafford
my personal preference would be to learn in the tail-dragger. you MUST fly
it until it's tied down, meaning correct positioning of controls while
taxiing in winds etc. C152 is very forgiving of cavalier treatment in this
situation, so it would give you some better habits.
in flight, I couldn't vouch for the T-crafts habits. The C152 is very
benign. one question I would ask- is the T-craft certified for intentional
Glenn Sisson
I would suggest learning in the taildragger... they really aren't
that much harder, and I think that you may as well get some training
out of the time that you have to spend taxiing, since you are paying
for it anyway.
They are a lot more fun and more romantic (especially a T-Craft)
--- glenn
hplabs!hpldola!glenn
Super Decathlon 102EC
Jonathan E. Quist
> it until it's tied down, meaning correct positioning of controls while
By the way, the Cessna taildraggers (at least the 120/140 variety)
will teach you lots more than their tri-geared cousins.
In 152's and 172's, coordinating turns is practically just
a matter of flexing your toes on the appropriate rudder pedal.
In the C-140, a roll with the same rudder inputs will give you
a definite sideways tug in the seat of your pants.
The C-140 is very forgiving, but not very forgetting.
> benign. one question I would ask- is the T-craft certified for intentional
> spins? the Cessnoid is, and you need that training.
You obviously never had the pleasure of watching Duane Cole
perform in his T-craft. He'd spin, loop, and slow roll
the bird, (plus a lot of things I don't know the names of)
all with the prop stopped. (And at the end of his routine,
he'd land, turn off the runway, and taxi up to the reviewing
stand. The engine was still not running.)
I suspect just about all single-engine aircraft of that vintage
were certified for spins. (Wasn't that one of the CAA requirements?)
--
Jonathan E. Quist INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
j...@i88.isc.com Naperville, IL
{amdahl|att|masscomp|sco|sun}!laidbak!jeq
Gopal Ramachandran
>I'm about to start private pilot lessons.
> The instructor told me that the Taylorcraft is more difficult to
>learn in and may take longer, but that I would probably pick up better
>habbits than I would in a Cessna. He seems to think it should be
>that it would be more difficult to transition to a taildragger from
>a nosewheel plane.
He's absolutely right. Do it in the taildragger. Nosedragger pilots
(even multi pilots, after taking their checkride) dont really know
what a rudder is good for, for instance. You'll learn this plus lots
of other stuff.
Gopal
ATP-ASMEL
Geoff Peck
asks about the merits of learning in a nosedragger (Cessna 150/152) vs. a
taildragger (Taylorcraft). While the Voices of the Net have been
relatively unanimous in recommending a taildragger, let me offer a
somewhat different perspective.
The most important thing to do as a student pilot is to pick up good
general habits, and to become comfortable flying in an environment which
is as close as possible to that in which you will live for your next N
years as a pilot.
The key to these two important items is to find a good, knowledgeable
instructor with good habits, to whom you relate well, and who is
comfortable with the aviation environment as it is today and it will be in
the future.
Now, I know there are exceptions to the sweeping generalization I'm about
to make, but by and large it's true. Most taildragger instructors are
from the past generation, and on the whole they do not fit in well to
today's complex rules-and-airspace environment. They buck the trend, and
they pass this strong dislike for the "brave new world" on to their
students. Not to say that some of this dislike isn't justified, but it is
*not* good for a student these days to grow up being uncomfortable with
the system.
We've also learned something in the past 30 years about what makes a safe
pilot, as opposed to what makes a "good" pilot. These two are not really
that different, but the emphasis on procedures and systems is likely to be
stronger with a "modern" instructor than with an older "fly-by-the-seat-
of-the-pants and all-you-need-to-know-is-good-stick-and-rudder" instructor.
A very simple thought here:
"A good pilot is one who uses his superior judgement
to avoid having to use his superior piloting skills."
Lest you immediately conclude that nosedragger instructors don't know how
to teach rudder usage (usually because they don't know how to use the
rudders themselves), this probably isn't so. They may not be as critical
of student misuse of rudders as would a taildragger instructor (or for
that matter a taildragger airplane), but that simply permits more emphasis
on parts of the curriculum which may be more important these days.
Before everyone's blood begins to boil, let me add some cooling to this
discussion to again say that *these are generalizations*, and I'm quite
sure that you can find taildragger instructors who are more competent to
teach systems-and-procedures than 99% of the nosedragger instructors out
there. But, statistically, it's simply the case that most (but not all)
"new-fangled" instructors learned to fly nosedraggers, and will fly
nosedraggers.
[And lest you think that I, as a "nosedragger instructor" don't know about
rudders, I'm quite sure that virtually every one of my students will
remember that my most frequently uttered word for quite a few lessons is
"rudder". (Usually preceded by some directions, of course.) I'm quite
susceptible to motion sickness, and, believe me, I *notice* when the
rudder isn't being used *exactly* right!]
Now, some specific points.
The merits of spin training for private pilots, for example, have been
debated on the net (and by the flying public in general) for some time
now. But, given the choice between an instructor who'll do a good job of
teaching emergency flight by reference to instruments and an instructor
who'll do a good job of teaching spins to a student pilot, I'd stand by
the former (instruments) any day.
The student who learns instrument flight well is unquestionably a
safer pilot than the one who learns how to spin well.
How can I say this so surely? Well, look at the statistics. The
number-one accident cause for GA is continued VFR flight into instrument
meterological conditions. Stall-spin accidents are way down there on the
list of fatal accident causes, and are usually only secondary or tertiary
causes, with something like engine failure, low-level aerobatics in an
un-approved aircraft, or VFR flight into IMC as the primary cause(s).
Why do stall-spin accidents take a smaller, um, "market share" of our
fatalities than they used to? Required spin training? No, we don't have
that. We *do* have required training in *recognition and recovery from
stalls*. If you don't stall, you don't spin. Period. Also, and I know
this sounds funny, *airplanes* have gotten smarter. They just don't want
to spin as much as they used to. If you fly in a modern airplane, you're
less likely to have a stall-spin accident. Period.
[Note: I still do recommend spin training to my students, and most of
them do take it, with me. But it's optional. Hood work is not. Nor are
other things -- read on.]
[I know, lies, damn lies, and statistics. If eliminating spin training
has reduced spin-related accidents, why not eliminate hood training? I'll
let you answer that one on your own! :-) ]
What other things do you need to learn that might be short-changed by a
"taildragger instructor"? Good radio techinque. Dealing with complex,
busy airspace and airports. As a pilot in today's world, you will *need*
to deal with these things. (You wanna come visit in San Jose? Just guess
what happens if you try to arrive at 7pm and fly your final at 60mph!)
Most taildragger pilots (and instructors) are not comfortable in busy
airspace. They want to simply turn off the radio and go flying. [Again,
energize those flame-thrower-extinguishers -- we're not talking single
data points of your favorite taildragger instructor who also happens to be
a 747 check pilot for TWA -- we're talking generalities.]
Even the aircraft themselves (taildraggers) are less well-equipped for
modern airspace. They're likely (again, statistically) to have less good
radios, maybe not be equipped with a mode-C (altitude reporting) radar
transponder, and so on. They may not have a full, standard
"T-configuration" instrument panel.
I require of each of my private students that they take at least one dual
flight right through the San Francisco TCA (terminal control area, the
most restrictive and busy kind of airpace you can find). And they also
have to fly one leg of a *solo* cross-country through the TCA -- which
means that their skill level must be high enough to do that. Since Bryan
is learning in Denver (did I guess right?), he should be sure to do the
same thing. Be comfortable with busy airspace -- you'll be living with it
for many years. And, for you to to be comfortable with it, you'll need an
instructor who is comfortable with it.
Now, you say, "I learned in a taildragger and I'm a better pilot because I
didn't neglect my simple basic flying skills like navigating by pilotage
(looking at the ground) and dead reckoning (stopwatch and compass)".
Well, a good instructor won't let you neglect these in a nosedragger,
either. But that good instructor will be able to get you to use radio
navigation techinques in a nosedragger, and the taildragger may not be
equipped for that.
Phew. I could go on and on about this, but ...
Let me make my recommendation. First, find a "thoroughly modern
instructor" (see above). Then, find an aircraft which is well-equipped --
at least one good nav-comm, a mode-C (altitude reporting) transponder, and
standard "T-configuration" flight instruments:
airspeed attitude indicator altimeter
turn coord. heading indicator vertical speed
Ideally, make sure that wherever you're learning has *several*
similarly-equipped aircraft. If you start learning in the one Barnburner
model 50 which the flight school has, you can bet your Bippy that it'll
need a major engine overhaul (or a wing spar replaced, or you name it)
sometime during your career as a student pilot.
I'd also *strongly* suggest that you insist on having headsets and an
intercom for both you and the instructor, regardless of the airplane you
fly. This is such a good idea that you might consider investing in two
headsets and an intercom yourself if the airplane and/or instructor aren't
already equipped. After all, you'll probably want to take up a passenger
once you get your ticket! [If you want detailed recommendations on this,
I have an archive I can send you. Let's not clutter the net with this
subject again...]
Your goal as a student pilot, again, is to be the best private pilot you
can be. Once you're a good private pilot, transitioning to other aircraft
won't be terribly difficult.
If you follow this advice, chances are (statistically, again), that you'll
end up learning in a nose-dragging Cessnoid (or Piper). Whatever you do,
though, get started -- and enjoy!
Geoff
[p.s. I've sent Bryan, under separate cover, a handout and several
articles which are of great relevance to student pilots. If you'd like a
copy, send me e-mail.]
--
Geoff Peck, Apple Computer, Inc., MS77-A, Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 974-9303
ge...@apple.com {sun,nsc}!apple!geoff AppleLink: PECK.G #include <disclaimer.h>
Christopher Pettus
Of course, we know what the rudder pedals are for. Ground handling. :-)
One concern is that most taildraggers that I'm aware of are front-and-back
seating, while most nosewheel planes used for training are side-by-side.
My feeling is that the side-by-side arrangement is much better for
instruction, since you can actually see what the instructor is doing.
--
Christopher Pettus, Network Connectivity Development, Apple Computer, Inc.
MS 35-K -- 408/974-0004 -- c...@apple.com -- sun!apple!cep -- link PETTUS.C
Steve Hix
I think the T-cart is pretty nice in flight habits, if a bit blind in turns.
The original design was certified for intentional spins (recovery is neat
and simple, too), and even the most recently-made version, the F19-series
was passed on the old certificate. Shouldn't be a problem.
Yes...start out with the tail-dragger.
------------
"Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen,
we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..."
('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
Quent Johnson
A whole lot of good stuff. Thanks, once again, Geoff for your
very useful input! I agree 99% :-)
>Even the aircraft themselves (taildraggers) are less well-equipped for
>modern airspace. They're likely (again, statistically) to have less good
>radios, maybe not be equipped with a mode-C (altitude reporting) radar
>transponder, and so on. They may not have a full, standard
>"T-configuration" instrument panel.
I saw a *real* nice Piper taildragger (family cruiser I think it was)
at Oshkosh last year. It had a *very full* IFR panel! A real nice statistical
anomoly :-) :-)
Quentin Johnson {} ISU Computer Science Department
qu...@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu | uunet!umix!sharkey!atanasoff!quent
Deene Ogden
>In article <74...@uswat.UUCP>, br...@eatdust.uswest.COM (Bryan Griffin)
>writes that he's about to start learning to fly (congratulations!), and
>asks about the merits of learning in a nosedragger (Cessna 150/152) vs. a
>taildragger (Taylorcraft). While the Voices of the Net have been
>relatively unanimous in recommending a taildragger, let me offer a
>somewhat different perspective.
>
I really enjoy your postings, Geoff, but I just don't agree with some
of your line of thinking in this one.
>The most important thing to do as a student pilot is to pick up good
>general habits, and to become comfortable flying in an environment which
>is as close as possible to that in which you will live for your next N
>years as a pilot.
>
I totally agree.
>The key to these two important items is to find a good, knowledgeable
>instructor with good habits, to whom you relate well, and who is
>comfortable with the aviation environment as it is today and it will be in
>the future.
Yep.
>Now, I know there are exceptions to the sweeping generalization I'm about
>to make, but by and large it's true. Most taildragger instructors are
>from the past generation, and on the whole they do not fit in well to
>today's complex rules-and-airspace environment. They buck the trend, and
This is where I just don't agree with your opinion. Maybe you guys in
the Bay area have a group of active instructors that fit your description.
I just don't know of many around here. Among the 10 or 15 instructors I
know and/or work with, it just doesn't work out. About one half are older
(age > 40 ?) and maybe one fourth are tailwheel qualified (not all
instruct in tailwheel). And the older tailwheel guys just don't seem
to fit your description. In fact the more experienced instructors (many
of which are also older) are sought out by knowledgeable students.
>they pass this strong dislike for the "brave new world" on to their
>students. Not to say that some of this dislike isn't justified, but it is
I not sure what "brave new world" your are talking about, but things
really have not changed that fast. Even TCA's have been around
for almost 20 years. Sure more restrictions are added each year, but
they are almost universally disliked, and most are ill conceived.
Regardless, the students must know the subject and have the skills to
past the checkride.
Much of your discussion seems to be centered on the idea that taildraggers
and associated instructors somehow detract from student learning and
students becoming good pilots.
It seems to me that the increased rudder awareness required in taildraggers
during taxi, takeoff roll, and landing doesn't mean that the student
will naturally learn less about "modern procedures and systems". In fact
most of my taildragger students spend a few more hours learning to takeoff
and land, but otherwise the training is the same as for nosewheel students.
You just can't get students past examiners without good backgrounds in
airspace, and procedures and systems, at least not in this area.
I would argue that putting a student in an airplane that is more difficult
to takeoff and land is not that much different from giving a student a load
of instruments and radios to learn. In each case it is going to take him
longer to learn and when he does become proficient, he is going to be a
better pilot.
Well, I'm not sure going on and refuting each of your old instructor
and taildragger points in this "generalization" is going to change your
views and besides, this posting is getting too long already.
A gentle slip in a taildragger to a soft three-point landing on the 1000
foot grass strip can be as rewarding as a crisp call to approach control
with the proper inflection and ATIS code. And I think it can be a
good learning experience and is a part of flying that shouldn't be
missed.
I guess being an older instructor who spends about half my time in
taildraggers (ranging from J-3/4/5's to the Grob motorglider) and the
other half in "nosedraggers" (ranging from Tomahawks to instrument
training in twins), I just couldn't resist commenting "try it, you
might like it".
Deene (ol' taildragger instructor) Ogden
CFI AIMG
Prof. David F. Rogers <dfr@usna>
tri-cycle gear aircraft with a good modern instructor than in a
taildragger.
Well I learned to fly 30+ years ago in a taildragger, an Aeronca 7AC,
with a crusty old former civilian WWII flight instructor. The aircraft
not only had no radio, it, of course, has no flaps, the field was grass,
etc. I learned spins, and quite thoroughly enjoyed them.
Believe me I would not do it that way again. The transition to
a modern flight environment was a bit difficult when I moved
to the DC area.
I am with Geoff on this one. Find a good instructor, a modern airplane
(well sort of), an go flying. After all that is the objective and
a trike will get you there faster.
Dave Rogers
Sara D Ugarte
>In article <40...@apple.Apple.COM> ge...@Apple.COM (Geoff Peck) writes:
>that he would rather have a student learn in a good well equipped
>tri-cycle gear aircraft with a good modern instructor than in a
>taildragger.
>
>Well I learned to fly 30+ years ago in a taildragger, an Aeronca 7AC,
>with a crusty old former civilian WWII flight instructor. The aircraft
>not only had no radio, it, of course, has no flaps, the field was grass,
>etc. I learned spins, and quite thoroughly enjoyed them.
>
>Believe me I would not do it that way again. The transition to
>a modern flight environment was a bit difficult when I moved
>to the DC area.
The question that comes to mind for me (looking at your article) is
how much flying you did between getting the license and making the
transition to the modern flight environment. If there was not much
activity in the air during those years, I can sure understand why the
transition was a big one. The point everyone was trying to make is
that taildraggers tend to make you learn from the beginning how to fly
a plane and why it works the way it does. The transition to trikes
with radios is, of course, expected, and it is a given that we all
need to learn how to fly in the controlled/radio environment.
Radios aside, when I (forgive me - I had to eat) used to teach
ultralight flying I used to love seeing a) helicopter pilots; b) "old
time" taildragger pilots; and c) Airline pilots come to me for
transitions. The "chopper" pilots knew control and finesse, the
taildragger pilots understood what the plane would do and why, and the
airline pilots were used to being trained (didnt want short cuts). The
*absolute worst* profile was the male with 10 years in trikes and 125
hours total time.... he knew everything before we got started, the
ultralight was a "toy" compared to his 172, and he (after all) had ten
years of flying experience (he'd swagger around saying). *sigh*
Doc, I'd still stick with the advice to start with a taildragger and
transition to trike and radios ... and I'll bet YOU are one heck of a
lot better pilot for learning the way you did. (C'mon.... wouldn't you
just *love* to hop in an Airknocker and fly pilotage down the coast?
... Doesn't that still appeal to you more than needle reading through
a TCA?) :-)
Bill Robie
7AC NC82721
Mike E. Ciholas
should skip this article too.
I speak as a new private pilot, learned in a taildragger in the SF bay area.
In general, Geoff, I think you make very cogent and knowledgable comments
on the net. I, however, being a "statistical anomoly", must disagree with
some of your comments about taildraggers and instructors.
In article <40...@apple.Apple.COM> ge...@Apple.COM (Geoff Peck) writes:
>While the Voices of the Net have been
>relatively unanimous in recommending a taildragger, let me offer a
>somewhat different perspective.
>
>[stuff about picking up good habits, relating to an instructor, etc.]
>
>Now, I know there are exceptions to the sweeping generalization I'm about
>to make, but by and large it's true. Most taildragger instructors are
>from the past generation, and on the whole they do not fit in well to
>today's complex rules-and-airspace environment. They buck the trend, and
>they pass this strong dislike for the "brave new world" on to their
>students. Not to say that some of this dislike isn't justified, but it is
>*not* good for a student these days to grow up being uncomfortable with
>the system.
Did you just say that a taildragger instructors, "by and large", are
*unqualified*!?! That they impart a kind of hatred into their students
against the "system"!?!
>We've also learned something in the past 30 years about what makes a safe
>pilot, as opposed to what makes a "good" pilot. These two are not really
>that different, but the emphasis on procedures and systems is likely to be
>stronger with a "modern" instructor than with an older "fly-by-the-seat-
>of-the-pants and all-you-need-to-know-is-good-stick-and-rudder" instructor.
Did taildragger instructor's brains stop working 30 years ago? I suspect
that the "stick and rudder" mentality is a reaction to the machine-like
"procedures and systems" that exist today. I personally feel that too
many people know only "procedures" (as they should), and not enough
understand the reasoning behind them.
What is a good pilot that is not safe?
>A very simple thought here:
>
> "A good pilot is one who uses his superior judgement
> to avoid having to use his superior piloting skills."
But he better damn well have the skills so that his judgement can be wrong
every now and then. "Experience is what you get immediately after you
need it."
>Lest you immediately conclude that nosedragger instructors don't know how
>to teach rudder usage (usually because they don't know how to use the
>rudders themselves), this probably isn't so.
True. Never was claimed to be so (not by me, anyway).
>They may not be as critical
>of student misuse of rudders as would a taildragger instructor (or for
>that matter a taildragger airplane), but that simply permits more emphasis
>on parts of the curriculum which may be more important these days.
Such as ...? What's more important than using the flight controls properly?
If the instructor is not critical, who is going to be? You've gotta walk
before you can run.
>Before everyone's blood begins to boil, let me add some cooling to this
>discussion to again say that *these are generalizations*, and I'm quite
>sure that you can find taildragger instructors who are more competent to
>teach systems-and-procedures than 99% of the nosedragger instructors out
>there. But, statistically, it's simply the case that most (but not all)
>"new-fangled" instructors learned to fly nosedraggers, and will fly
>nosedraggers.
Newer isn't better, and better isn't newer. So what if more younger
instructors learned in nosewheels? What does that prove? Personally, my
instructor (mid 40's) had enough "experience" to provide help that maybe
a younger or less experienced instructor might not have (I said "might").
I also think he learned in a nosewheel!
>[Stuff about Geoff demanding good rudder usage from students]
>
>Now, some specific points.
>
>The merits of spin training for private pilots, for example, have been
>debated on the net (and by the flying public in general) for some time
>now. But, given the choice between an instructor who'll do a good job of
>teaching emergency flight by reference to instruments and an instructor
>who'll do a good job of teaching spins to a student pilot, I'd stand by
>the former (instruments) any day.
>
> The student who learns instrument flight well is unquestionably a
> safer pilot than the one who learns how to spin well.
Why can't we have both? I am not personally for a rule that requires spin
training, but I would always get it if you can. Every pilot can tell you
about the first time he was in a spin, and how "frozen" he was. If you go
through this with an instructor, you will KNOW what is happening should you
accidentally get in one. Teaching people how to get into spins is stupid.
Teaching how to get OUT is smart. I had spin training on my third lesson.
Spins were never taught to me as something to do. There were always taught
as something to AVOID.
>How can I say this so surely? Well, look at the statistics. The
>number-one accident cause for GA is continued VFR flight into instrument
>meterological conditions. Stall-spin accidents are way down there on the
>list of fatal accident causes, and are usually only secondary or tertiary
>causes, with something like engine failure, low-level aerobatics in an
>un-approved aircraft, or VFR flight into IMC as the primary cause(s).
I was shocked to learn from a friend that Switzerland requires spin training,
but does not require ANY hood time to get their basic private pilot license.
I put my friend under the hood once, and all hell broke out. In half an
hour, he was doing pretty well. Its exposure all private pilots should get.
>Why do stall-spin accidents take a smaller, um, "market share" of our
>fatalities than they used to? Required spin training? No, we don't have
>that. We *do* have required training in *recognition and recovery from
>stalls*. If you don't stall, you don't spin. Period. Also, and I know
>this sounds funny, *airplanes* have gotten smarter. They just don't want
>to spin as much as they used to. If you fly in a modern airplane, you're
>less likely to have a stall-spin accident. Period.
Hmmm, a modern airplane! What a concept! I learn in a 170 which is
fundamentally the same aerodynamics as a new 172. So much for modern.
I agree, though, that making airplanes less spinnable is an admirable
goal (I think this is why the spin training rule was eliminated, to allow
manufacturers to make unspinnable airplanes).
>[Note: I still do recommend spin training to my students, and most of
>them do take it, with me. But it's optional. Hood work is not. Nor are
>other things -- read on.]
Amen, brother!
>[I know, lies, damn lies, and statistics. If eliminating spin training
>has reduced spin-related accidents, why not eliminate hood training? I'll
>let you answer that one on your own! :-) ]
Different environment. The instructor in a spin must be able to recover.
Under the hood, the instructor is (hopefully) still VFR. Take a gross weight
150 with a freaked-out student spinning toward the ground offers considerable
risk.
>What other things do you need to learn that might be short-changed by a
>"taildragger instructor"? Good radio techinque. Dealing with complex,
>busy airspace and airports. As a pilot in today's world, you will *need*
>to deal with these things. (You wanna come visit in San Jose? Just guess
>what happens if you try to arrive at 7pm and fly your final at 60mph!)
Oh, come on! I've landed at SJC! Several times! What's the big deal?
I've been in more TCA's than there used to be 10 years ago (SF, LA, BOS,
NYC, PHIL, WASH, DFW). Just because a taildragger instructor uses his
feet doesn't mean he can't talk!
>Most taildragger pilots (and instructors) are not comfortable in busy
>airspace. They want to simply turn off the radio and go flying.
Yeah, sounds good to me. Maybe they know something about pure flying that
the "new-fangled" people don't? Maybe how much fun it is? I am not
advocating not using the radio, just that you don't have to use it *all*
the time! I routinely ask for flight following, fly into ARSA's and TCA's
(on purpose!), doesnt' sound like I'm "uncomfortable" with it, huh? My
brother (learned in 150 with a young instructor, but now has a 140) still
has a bad taste for controlled airspace. That sentiment has nothing to do
with where the third wheel is!
>Even the aircraft themselves (taildraggers) are less well-equipped for
>modern airspace. They're likely (again, statistically) to have less good
>radios, maybe not be equipped with a mode-C (altitude reporting) radar
>transponder, and so on. They may not have a full, standard
>"T-configuration" instrument panel.
Maybe pilots should get used to less equipment than more. For IFR work, of
course, this isn't the case. Pilots who come to depend on AH and DG's
may have more trouble when it comes to instrument failures. I sense in the
aviation world that a lot of people think you really outta have a full
IFR panel in every airplane. I just don't think so! (BTW, I do have TXP,
mode C, "T" cluster, etc.).
>I require of each of my private students that they take at least one dual
>flight right through the San Francisco TCA (terminal control area, the
>most restrictive and busy kind of airpace you can find). And they also
>have to fly one leg of a *solo* cross-country through the TCA -- which
>means that their skill level must be high enough to do that. Since Bryan
>is learning in Denver (did I guess right?), he should be sure to do the
>same thing. Be comfortable with busy airspace -- you'll be living with it
>for many years. And, for you to to be comfortable with it, you'll need an
>instructor who is comfortable with it.
Good idea. All for it. The SF TCA, however, is one of the nicer ones.
Sometimes a student (or a private for that matter) just can't get into the
TCA. "Remain clear, etc."
>Now, you say, "I learned in a taildragger and I'm a better pilot because I
>didn't neglect my simple basic flying skills like navigating by pilotage
>(looking at the ground) and dead reckoning (stopwatch and compass)".
>Well, a good instructor won't let you neglect these in a nosedragger,
>either.
I agree. Pilotage and dead-reckoning have nothing to do with where the third
wheel is.
>But that good instructor will be able to get you to use radio
>navigation techinques in a nosedragger, and the taildragger may not be
>equipped for that.
Find one that is. There are plenty of 150's out there with crummy or
non-existent instruments and radios, ya know.
>Let me make my recommendation. First, find a "thoroughly modern
>instructor" (see above). Then, find an aircraft which is well-equipped --
>at least one good nav-comm, a mode-C (altitude reporting) transponder, and
>standard "T-configuration" flight instruments:
>
> airspeed attitude indicator altimeter
>
> turn coord. heading indicator vertical speed
>
>Ideally, make sure that wherever you're learning has *several*
>similarly-equipped aircraft. If you start learning in the one Barnburner
>model 50 which the flight school has, you can bet your Bippy that it'll
>need a major engine overhaul (or a wing spar replaced, or you name it)
>sometime during your career as a student pilot.
>
>I'd also *strongly* suggest that you insist on having headsets and an
>intercom for both you and the instructor, regardless of the airplane you
>fly. This is such a good idea that you might consider investing in two
>headsets and an intercom yourself if the airplane and/or instructor aren't
>already equipped. After all, you'll probably want to take up a passenger
>once you get your ticket!
No mention of a nosewheel?
>Your goal as a student pilot, again, is to be the best private pilot you
>can be. Once you're a good private pilot, transitioning to other aircraft
>won't be terribly difficult.
Amen, brother!
When I tried to schedule my check ride, I had *3* flight examiners cancel
when they found out it was a taildragger! I have NEVER heard of anyone
canceling a flight exam when they found out it was a nosedragger! These
are FAA certified flight examiners! Why is this? Taildraggers just aren't
that hard if you learn correctly (even in a nosewheel!).
>If you follow this advice, chances are (statistically, again), that you'll
>end up learning in a nose-dragging Cessnoid (or Piper). Whatever you do,
>though, get started -- and enjoy!
True enough. However, more opportunities exist for a beginning tailwheel
pilot today than did 10 years ago. It may be nostalgia, romance, etc. but
it could be just a recognition of a tailwheel's value.
> Geoff
Thanks Geoff. May you interpret my remarks in the spirit intended.
Tom Myers
> going to use teaches in Cessna 150/152s as well as a Taylorcraft,
> which is a taildragger. The instructor told me that the Taylorcraft is
> more difficult to learn in and may take longer, but that I would probably pick
> more difficult to transition to a taildragger from a nosewheel plane.
Yes, taildraggers are a bit harder, in that you have to fly them 100% of the
time you are in them. Things are capable of getting out of control much
faster if you are slow to respond, or correct. However, mastering a taildragger
will probably make you a better pilot. You can get away with less than in a nose
pusher. On the other hand, nose pushers are a bit more forgiving, especially
for those at the pre-solo, or just-soloed level. It is easier to transition from
tail to nose, than the reverse. Either way, I would highly recommend getting
time in both.
> I'm going to get an introductory flight in both planes back to back to
> compare for myself, but I'd appreciate any comments people have about the
> merits of learning to fly in a taildragger. Thanks,
Sounds good. Do what's right for you.
TRM N1005E
Glenn Sisson
> front-and-back seating, while most nosewheel planes used for training
> are side-by-side. My feeling is that the side-by-side arrangement is
> much better for instruction, since you can actually see what the
> instructor is doing.
> --
> Christopher Pettus, Network Connectivity Development, Apple Computer,
> Inc.
All the Taylorcrafts I've seen are side-by-side aircraft.
--- glenn
Prof. David F. Rogers <dfr@usna>
Sure would. You coming my way any time soon?
However, I also enjoy needle reading. In fact, I think that getting
an IFR ticket is probably the single thing that really made me a
better pilot.
And yes I am going back to a taildragger when I get around to doing
the acro that I have been promising myself.
But, I am still with Geoff on this one. The magic is in the flying and
a trike is easier to learn in and get flying. That is the objective
for most students. Being easier, it should cost less to learn and to get
a PP ticket and that is a consideration for most people. There is also
no reason that, with a good instructor, you can't learn to properly use
the rudder in a trike.
I also practice what I preach. I handed the 172 to my youngest son
to learn in. He sole'd and then went to P'cola where he is really
learning to fly. In, you guessed it, a trike. In fact, he probably will
spend his entire flying career in trikes. BTW, a Naval Aviator
really does learn to use the rudder.
Dave Rogers
Jack C. Armstrong
to any general rule, but it is still generally true that nose draggers are
the place to start flying in today's airspace. There is a (in)famous lady
instructor in this area who insists that all her primary students *start*
their training in a tail wheel, with a shift to nose wheels for the rest of
the trip to SEL (no, not RHV's beloved Amelia). Trouble is, an appalling
number of her students quit before they get to the nose wheel part. I
personally know of two friends who had this experience and have heard of
several others. Sad, because both were females and chose her for reasons
of gender, and both came away convinced that piloting an airplane requires
superhuman skills which they personally lack. One is now *very* uncomfortable
flying in any light aircraft, something she formerly enjoyed very much.
I started in very benign nose wheel trainers, but have flown a number of
tail wheels, and I have to say that I can believe the insurance company
statistics which make insuring tail wheels significantly more expensive.
BTW, I *do* agree that TWs are excellent *supplimentary* training, and are
found on some very fun aircraft! (One of my side dreams is to own a J3
born in the same year as me - yeah, they made them then, but only with
wooden spars - in California, ya gotta trust them termites to all hold hands!)
Steven Philipson
()
In article <78...@goofy.Apple.COM>, c...@Apple.COM
> One concern is that most taildraggers that I'm aware of are front-and-back
> seating, while most nosewheel planes used for training are side-by-side.
I don't think that this is a good generalization. Most modern (since
the advent of the Cessna 150) *civilian* trainers are of the side-by-side
tricycle configuration, but it hasn't always been this way. In
particular, many military trainers are trike-tandem designs. FYI, here
are a few counter-examples to the rule.
Side-by-side tail-draggers: Cessna 120/140 (of which there were many
used for training), Luscombe 8 Silvare, Globe Swift, Funk (don't know the
model name), Whitman Tailwind and Buttercup, Glassair (also available as
a trike).
Tandem trikes: numerous militarty trainers including Beech T-34 Mentor,
Northrop T-38 Talon, Pilatus PC-7, Douglas (?) A-4 Skyhawk and new Goshawk,
and a host of others; Varga Kachina, Rutan LongEze and VariEze, Grob 103
(and many other similar sailplanes), Schweizer 2-33 (nose skid), etc.
Steve
(the certified flying fanatic)
ste...@decwrl.dec.com