Is tailwheel endorsement really necessary?

[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?

 

[tracearabians]

Only if you are going to fly a tail wheel aircraft.

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?

 

[tracearabians]

I agree, They will bite you !

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.

 

[tracearabians]

Whopping 220 hours TT and giving advice like this ! Wow !

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.

 

[nosehair]

is it really worth getting? Do you really need it if you're a career-minded pilot?

I see you fly a PA28-140. By now you have discovered that when you land a little off-center, you don't crash. The landing may not be purr-fect, but it's not so bad, and sometimes it's pretty as you please.
I don't know where you are in your training, but somewhere along the line, you have probably had these thoughts - maybe even encouraged by your instructor.

So you probably think it's ok to land a litle off-center. By off-center, I mean 2 things: (1) being off-center from the runway centerline, and (2) not having the nose precisely aligned with the airplane's forward motion.
(1)&(2) are seperate, but inseperately related.

In (2) if the nose is precisely aligned with the airplane's forward motion on initial touch-down, and remains that way, throughout the landing roll until slowed to a safe taxi speed, there will be no side-load, or side ways force.

In a nosewheel airplane, since it is designed with the CG forward of the landing gear, if the nose is off-center at touch-down, the CG being foward of the landing gear will pull the nose back into alignment with the runway. You are probably not even aware that the nose was a little off, just a degree or two, not in alignment with it's forward motion. The forward-pulling CG took care of that so you wouldn't even notice. Isn't that great to have such good engineering?

Good engineering, but bad for training. It's kinda like having training wheels on permanantly.

So, you say, in effect, if all the airplanes you're ever gonna fly are the kind with "training wheels" why bother?

Well,...sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes, the training wheels on these airplanes come off. By that, I mean, a very unusual "squirrely", gusty,crosswind/tailwind/windshear situation on touchdown may cause this well-engineered machine to not respond in the normal manner.

In a tailwheel airplane, the cg is behind the main landing gear, so if your nose is not aligned on touchdown, the sideways force is multiplied. The cg pulls the tail around more. Instant rudder pressure action is required in exactly the right moment and exactly right amont of pressure. It's really no big deal. You do it when you walk. You put one foot precisely in front of the other, with precisely the right amount of pressure as you walk along in a purposeful manner. You're not thinking about it, but you're doing it. Because you practiced it. You fell down a bunch of times practicing it, but you got it, and by now you don't even think about it.

Same thing with landing an airplane. Any airplane.

 

[Geronimo4497]

There are pilots and there are drivers. Pilots have tailwheel experience/signoff. I sure wish tailwheel experience was part of the commercial requirements. Just spent may last tour constantly saying 'how 'bout that cross-wind correction??!!'

BTW, the conversion to turn the Tri-Pacer (PA-22-xxx where the xxx=horsepower) into a real airplane is called the PA-22/20-xxx. Neat conversion, especially with a 180 shoehorned into the cowl.

 

[Waldom]

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.

Sleddriver, I agree with your remarks regarding conventional-gear aircraft and how the experience translates to all aircraft. I've spent more than 6000 hours in them. I also concur that the majority of pilots out there would greatly benefit by gaining tailwheel experience.

I have transitioned a very few folks to tailwheel aircraft that had little trouble adjusting to the configuration. They were each disiplined, self-motivated airmen that payed attention to details.

My point is that some instructor taught that disipline and attention to detail. I acknowledge that most folks that made the transition did not meet that description. They frankly did not realize how poor their performance actually was until they flew a tailwheel aircraft. I feel that their primary instructor shared some of the blame for this.

In my previous post, I guess I was a bit too subtle. I was trying to avoid the "you ain't worth much unless you've flown a taildragger" attitude.

 

[hydroflyer]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[414Flyer]

Whopping 220 hours TT and giving advice like this ! Wow !

Did you actually look at some of the planes in his profile?

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

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?

Respect +1

I still think you duster guys have one of the hardest (but most interesting)
jobs.

Sacrasm noted VNugget. You gave me a scare for a bit.
It's so hard to get the tone sometimes.

CE

 

[Grumman guy]

You sure can tell the tailwheel pilots from the non- tailwheel pilots. All the tailwheel guys know what Iam talking about. Yes! There are two pedals on the floor and they do have a purpose.

I have done many a tailwheel endorsement for all kinds of professional pilots, from airline captains to charter pilots. Almost all have come back and said that the check airman, fellow pilots, or just they themself notice a massive increase in A/C controll and coordination both on the ground and in the air.

Go figure!