Is tailwheel endorsement really necessary?

[UA-RESURRECTED]

Sure it can't hurt, but these days you could easily start from zero time to 777 captain without ever touching a tailwheeled airplane. So, is it really worth getting? Do you really need it if you're a career-minded pilot?

 

[gear goes down]

Its all up to you. Do you want to fly a tail wheel airplane??? If not, then no. If your going to be a flight instructor and might be teaching in a tail wheel, then you might want it. It all depends. I would say dont get it until you need it (or want it).

 

[mcjohn]

No matter how awesome a pilot thinks their skills are if they try to land a heavy tail dragger in a crosswind or even on a calm day he/she will undoubtedly be humbled. It is a totally different kind of flying that takes practice. People say once you have it it's easy. If you learn on one it should be easy. But if you have a few hundred hours in a C172 and give it a go you're ego will be crushed. Go try it in a 170 or 185 or something. You'll see.

 

[sleddriver71]

Do it if you want to be a better pilot. You will learn what "seat of the pants" really means. I used to fly and instruct in a Cessna 120, that is when I really understood about using the rudders to keep it coordinated. I understood what adverse yaw was too. In that plane, if you tried to bank into a turn without using the rudder it would automatically yaw the wrong way while you banked and you would pretty much continue in an uncoordinated straight line. It was as McJohn put it a "humbling" experience. It was also the most rewarding flying I've ever done. I got my endorsement in a 150hp Super Cub. It was, to me, a lot easier to keep under control on the takeoff roll than the 120 which had 85hp. In the Super Cub if you ever got out of shape on the ground, all you had to do was add full power and you were airborne right now. The 120 was gutless and required you to drive it down the runway for quite some time before it gathered up the speed to liftoff. This, in my opinion, made the 120 a better tailwheel trainer, it just took more skill to stay out of trouble. If you want to do something challenging and really fun and become a far better stick and rudder, go find an "experienced" tailwheel instructor and get the endorsement.

 

[UA-RESURRECTED]

Do it if you want to be a better pilot. You will learn what "seat of the pants" really means. I used to fly and instruct in a Cessna 120, that is when I really understood about using the rudders to keep it coordinated. I understood what adverse yaw was too. In that plane, if you tried to bank into a turn without using the rudder it would automatically yaw the wrong way while you banked and you would pretty much continue in an uncoordinated straight line. It was as McJohn put it a "humbling" experience. It was also the most rewarding flying I've ever done. I got my endorsement in a 150hp Super Cub. It was, to me, a lot easier to keep under control on the takeoff roll than the 120 which had 85hp. In the Super Cub if you ever got out of shape on the ground, all you had to do was add full power and you were airborne right now. The 120 was gutless and required you to drive it down the runway for quite some time before it gathered up the speed to liftoff. This, in my opinion, made the 120 a better tailwheel trainer, it just took more skill to stay out of trouble. If you want to do something challenging and really fun and become a far better stick and rudder, go find an "experienced" tailwheel instructor and get the endorsement.

Great information thanks. I know what you mean. I fly a Cherokee-140, and I will honestly admit, right here on this forum, to not using ANY rudder in turns. The plane is simply so forgiving...coordinated turns all day long without even the slightest rudder input. I use the rudder mostly on takeoff, and taxi of course.

 

[rickair7777]

It's like a helicopter rating...fun but not necessary for the typical fixed wing professional.

If you have limited time and/or money, spend it on something more directly career or family enhancing (instructor rating, ATP written, etc.)

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

If a person learns to fly a tailwheel airplane and particularly if they learn to master wheel landings, that person will be able to land every airplane better, even large airline types of equipment like the B777. By learning wheel landings the pilot develops a peripheral sense of sink rate and height above the runway that applies to all airplanes. Sounds hard to believe but it does work. I know this to be true.

Non tailwheel pilots are now qualified to reply to this thread. Such pilots don't have a clue about what they have missed and don't know.

 

[VNugget]

Completely worthless. Much rather be rolling in plush leather luxury of a G-1000-equipped Cessna Skyhawk 172SP. Aww yeah! Who would want to waste their time in something obsolete like a taildragger? I bet they don't even have GPS.

 

[Waldom]

If your primary flight instructor did his or her job correctly, it will make little difference to the student where the little wheel is located on the aircraft. By this I mean that the instructor required faultless flight control coordination, precise airspeed control, and tolerated absolutely no drift at touch down or anywhere else on the landing or takeoff roll.

While a tricycle landing gear allows you to be a sloppy pilot, your instructor may not have done the same. If this happy circumstance was the case, you don't need a tailwheel endorsement. If you suspect that your instructor was a bit lax or you don't maintain those standards yourself, get another instructor or make it a point to get comfortable in a conventional-gear aircraft.

 

[sleddriver71]

If your primary flight instructor did his or her job correctly, it will make little difference to the student where the little wheel is located on the aircraft. By this I mean that the instructor required faultless flight control coordination, precise airspeed control, and tolerated absolutely no drift at touch down or anywhere else on the landing or takeoff roll.

While a tricycle landing gear allows you to be a sloppy pilot, your instructor may not have done the same. If this happy circumstance was the case, you don't need a tailwheel endorsement. If you suspect that your instructor was a bit lax or you don't maintain those standards yourself, get another instructor or make it a point to get comfortable in a conventional-gear aircraft.

I don't agree at all that it won't make any difference at all just because your instructor did their job correctly. It doesn't matter how perfectly you fly a tricycle gear airplane. Becoming proficient in a tailwheel airplane will enable you to feel things that you never noticed in a tricycle gear airplane. This has nothing to do with being a sloppy pilot in a tricycle or tailwheel airplane. A tailwheel airplane forces you to make positive and immediate corrections. Learning to make these corrections and knowing when to make them will translate to any aircraft. Whether your instructor was top notch or lax, if you are interested in being a better pilot, you will benefit from a tailwheel endorsement.

 

[dardar]

i've flown a lot of airplanes. especially for the time i have. the sewer tube (sa227) was a pretty difficult plane to land, but the hardest was a piper tripacer with a tailwheel conversion. by far the hardest to land

did getting the tailwheel help me in my career progression at all? no, but it was fun. the only people that seem to care about tailwheel experience are the old timers, and they aren't the ones interviewing you.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Completely worthless. Much rather be rolling in plush leather luxury of a G-1000-equipped Cessna Skyhawk 172SP. Aww yeah! Who would want to waste their time in something obsolete like a taildragger? I bet they don't even have GPS.

I can only hope you are being sarcastic.

I remember a kid who already knew everything try flying the Citabria
with me as the instructor. Wasn't interested in the ground schooling
about ground loops, and landing techniques. After his 3rd try he gave
up. As he walked away, he muttered that he didn't need to fly an old
fabric airplane since his daddy would get him a job at TWA.

I prefer an old dope and rag no radio, NO GPS, no electrical, and
biological starter.

It makes you a better pilot. Period.

CE

 

[Say Again Over]

(sa227) was a pretty difficult plane to land by dardar

No harder than a Cessna 210.

 

[Tram]

Needed? Nah.. but it sure is fun.

 

[hydroflyer]

but the hardest was a piper tripacer with a tailwheel conversion.

I thought the Pacer came first, and the tripacer was a pacer with the nose wheel conversion. Am I mistaken?

The tailwheel endorsement is on my wishlist of things to get, especially since I would eventually like to own an old taildragger. To me stick and rudder flying with a tailwheel is a more pure form of flying, back to basics. Technology is nice, but sometimes the basics is a nice break. Perhaps what will influence your decision about the endorsement is the availability to fly a tailwheel plane after the endorsement. They are getting harder to find for flight training and especially rental.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

It's really hard for me to believe that young people graduate with a college DEGREE IN AVIATION as a pilot and they can not land three-quarters of the airplanes at Oshkosh.

Any such program should include a tailwheel checkout and a 10-hour course in aerobatics.

 

[VNugget]

I thought the Pacer came first, and the tripacer was a pacer with the nose wheel conversion. Am I mistaken?

He's probably talking about the history of the particular airplane he flew.

I can only hope you are being sarcastic.

Only on days that end with Y. I fully share your thoughts on the matter. Take a look at my profile.

 

[VNugget]

It's really hard for me to believe that young people graduate with a college DEGREE IN AVIATION as a pilot and they can not land three-quarters of the airplanes at Oshkosh.

Any such program should include a tailwheel checkout and a 10-hour course in aerobatics.

Hell, I know one where you don't have to ever set foot in an airplane.

Sometimes I wish I'd listen to Pilotyip

 

[A Squared]

I thought the Pacer came first, and the tripacer was a pacer with the nose wheel conversion. Am I mistaken?

If you mean that all tri-pacers are pacers which have been retrofitted with nosewheels, yes, you are mistaken. The tri-pacer was an actual factory model, the PA-22 (The Pacer is a PA-20) It is not uncommon for people to convert a PA-22 to a PA-20. the conversion is very simple.

 

[RightPedal]

My first twenty hours of conventional gear was a C-170. That thing will teach a person what not to do in an airplane on the ground. The next hundred or so was a piper J3 and she taught me how to fly. Then came fifty or so in the spring gear citabria. That thing lets one know what it's like to be a basketball. Then I spent the next thousand hours in a maule with some evil minded cone tail luscombe time thrown in. Stearman, oh yeah, right back to the question of, am I a pilot or a passenger. After all that, an over gross 600hp ag-cat working off a dirt road was childs play.
Does a conventional gear endorsement do anything for you. You want to be a pilot or just somebody with a ticket?