Which is the better teacher...taildragger or trike?

[pilottj]

Hey folks,
Here is an interesting debate for you. Which style of airplane is better to learn in? Which teaching method is better? I know it depends on the individual student as we all have our ways of learning.

The Trike style of teaching. Easier to learn the basics, safer, quicker to master, the student has a smaller workload to begin with and will gain confidence faster.

The Taildragger method of teaching. Not as forgiving, requires greater rudder coordination skills to master, thus more workload for the student and a longer training process. However the student will have a better understanding of hand to feet coordination.

So which would you rather start out with? The 152/Cherokee or the Cub/Citabria.

This leads to another question, do you think the earlier generation of stick n rudder pilots had a better sense of aircraft momentum and were more attuned to their airplanes because they learned in Cubs, Stearman, Chipmunks, Tigermoths?

Would be great to hear some opinions of any CFI's here. I know Ken would have a bit to say if he was here.

This could apply to other learning fields too such as driving (Stickshift or Automatic) or horsemanship (English or Western)

Personally, if I had the choice I would go back in time and redo my training in a taildragger so I would have a stronger instinct of hand to feet coordination in the plane.

 

[Tako_Kichi]

Interesting question. My first flights were in a Chipmunk so I'd say taildragger would be for me.

However, I have more stick/flight time in aircraft with only a single wheel (in the middle) so does that make them a trike or taildragger?!

 

[CodyValkyrie]

I find it the equivalent to driving a standard (tricycle gear) to driving a manual (tail dragger). Most tail draggers are more susceptible to adverse yaw, and with ground looping and various landing techniques available, I believe those who learn in a tail dragger learn more about airmanship.

I am positive there are a lot of CFIs out there who disagree with me.

 

[beana51]

TAIL DRAGGER!....stick and rudder....The training tool for thousands of pilots in both WW1 and WW2....it is more demanding in wind,especially take off and Landings.....Not to say Triks have not been around for a long time,and used also,...but from a CUB,to a B-17 bomber...it had a tail wheel......become proficent in a tail dragger ,ya can fly any thing.

The other timeless debate is ..High Wing ,VS low wing!..their are legions of advocates for both....

Come to think of it the Wright Flyer just Skidded along.And the Curtiss Pusher was indeed a TRIKE!

Cessna "LAND -O-MATIC" I think never did.....its always "STICK AND RUDDER"!

 

[OleBoy]

If you want to see the runway all the way to the ground, tri-gear. If you don't, tail dragger. I prefer the latter.


Edit; For teaching, trike definitely. It's just one thing less that a new pilot has to think about.

 

[txnetcop]

Taildragger period...

 

[mmann]

The local flight school in my area uses Cessna 172's. The military for Canada uses the Slingsby T-67 Firefly for primary training but is considering either the Aeromacchi SF 260 or the Grob 120 as a replacement (all of which use tricycle landing gear). Taildraggers are yesteryear aircraft.

Regards, Mike Mann

 

[Overshoe]

Nostalgia is fine in FS where a ground loop won't break anything or kill anyone, but in the real world I want a Cessna 172. It really is just that simple.

 

[txnetcop]

The local flight school in my area uses Cessna 172's. The military for Canada uses the Slingsby T-67 Firefly for primary training but is considering either the Aeromacchi SF 260 or the Grob 120 as a replacement (all of which use tricycle landing gear). Taildraggers are yesteryear aircraft.

Regards, Mike Mann

I AGREE MIKE, the question was which was the better teacher. If you fly a taildragger correctly you really know a little more than the average pilot. I owned a 140 for years and years. I can't count the times I took experienced trike gear drivers up and they could not land that aircraft without lots of coaching. Many things can go wrong...

 

[pilottj]

Nostalgia is fine in FS where a ground loop won't break anything or kill anyone, but in the real world I want a Cessna 172. It really is just that simple.

I would agree too, the 172 is a wonderful airplane, I got about 200hrs in it. Sometimes tho I think the 172 is a little too forgiving, it lets you get away with things that can lead to bad habits that will kill you otherwise in other airplanes. I remember early in my training being uncoordinated/overcorrecting on Base to Final and my instructor saying if you did that in a Bonanza you would be dead now....good incentive not to do it

As far as loosing sight of the runway, even in a trike single during a well executed flare you loose foward sight of the runway for a few seconds and have to rely on your peripherals as you touch down. Sometimes after landing the nosegear oleo strut would get stuck in the extended position...taxiing felt like a taildragger until you did a quick slam on the brakes to get it back down

Cheers
TJ

 

[wbuchart]

Trike...

Although getting to flying a T-6 Texan once was the hight point of my flying days...

 

[beana51]

Yes Cessna's ,except the C-140,and Pipers except the Cub,are great for introduction to flying..yes, forgiving,,,many a sloppy turn to finial in a C-150,saved the day...not so in some other planes...."Driving a plane is not flying a plane".again once the wheels leave the grass ,no real difference in most planes,,but a X-wind situation??? white knuckles,and start toe dancing.,slipping,...now on a sim,..,of which I think is a great training tool for real flying around,but when it comes to X-Wind T/O or Landings...well!!....try it on the Sim,set up strong X-wind...and thank God ya got instant replay.However.Ultra lights are trikes, great Vis and still that X-wind will,and can, GETCHA!,..ask ROLLERBALL on TOH!. he can relate his incident! ditto for hang gliding,and landing in a chute1..ITS THE WIND!.Its all flight and everyone is different...... it could take very many Take Off and landings to get it right,for every one is different,and so are we!. In a pilots "BFR" at least one hour is ground instruction ,and at least one hour in flight...if you are having trouble ,or are rusty with X-winds,and other stuff..it Will be longer before ya get Signed off!..again a Sweaty time.But on the Sim? why a trot to the Frig will solve all!!<label for="rb_iconid_24">

</label>
.
I know most have read the great book "STICK AND RUDDER"by Wolfgang Langewiesche,...With a Handel like that,The man must know something...and he does..
if you have not?, highly Recommended......Cheers all!<label for="rb_iconid_20">

</label>

 

[glennc]

My thought is to learn in something similar to what you will fly once you have the "license to learn". If you will be flying in rough country where taildraggers are common and that's what you will be flying, start there. I have never done it, but I think some tail dragger time would be good for any pilot for all the reasons everyone one else has noted, besides I expect being just plain (or is that plane?) fun.

Glenn

 

[pilottj]

Yes Cessna's ,except the C-140,and Pipers except the Cub,are great for introduction to flying..yes, forgiving,,,many a sloppy turn to finial in a C-150,saved the day...not so in some other planes...."Driving a plane is not flying a plane".again once the wheels leave the grass ,no real difference in most planes,,but a X-wind situation??? white knuckles,and start toe dancing.,slipping,...now on a sim,..,of which I think is a great training tool for real flying around,but when it comes to X-Wind T/O or Landings...well!!....try it on the Sim,set up strong X-wind...and thank God ya got instant replay.However.Ultra lights are trikes, great Vis and still that X-wind will,and can, GETCHA!,..ask ROLLERBALL on TOH!. he can relate his incident! ditto for hang gliding,and landing in a chute1..ITS THE WIND!.Its all flight and everyone is different...... it could take very many Take Off and landings to get it right,for every one is different,and so are we!. In a pilots "BFR" at least one hour is ground instruction ,and at least one hour in flight...if you are having trouble ,or are rusty with X-winds,and other stuff..it Will be longer before ya get Signed off!..again a Sweaty time.But on the Sim? why a trot to the Frig will solve all!!<LABEL for=rb_iconid_24>

</LABEL>
.
I know most have read the great book "STICK AND RUDDER"by Wolfgang Langewiesche,...With a Handel like that,The man must know something...and he does..
if you have not?, highly Recommended......Cheers all!<LABEL for=rb_iconid_20>

</LABEL>

LOL yeah the other night I used the weather finder feature on ASE took me to some place in Nevada that gave me a 20kt crosswind. I hopped in the RealAir Citabria and had fun Very tricky, and it was a fairly large runway, would be very difficult on small 25-50' wide strips. It reminds you of why it is highly suggested you use proper crosswind correction techniques while taxiing ...controls positioned for climb/turn in to a quartering headwind, dive away from a quartering tailwind...keep that tail on the ground! Xwind corrections on a ground in a trike is a great habit too.

 

[Francois]

Since I have 75 % of my stick time in taildraggers, that's what I voted for. But in fact I don't know what's 'better'. Define 'better' ?

 

[Stefano Zibell]

The way I see things, it depends on where you're landing. But I'm more of a tricycle gear guy. For learning, I would go with that.

 

[rvn817j]

The 'Endless Debate'

The most important phases of flight are takeoff and landing (because you are in close proximity to the ground and any mishap can bend your airplane or you or both). Learning to fly in a conventional gear aircraft (tail-dragger) teaches a student better takeoff and landing technique simply because a tail-dragger is more challenging to properly handle during taxi, takeoff and landing. You have to use all aircraft control surfaces (throttle, aileron, elevator and rudder) to a greater degree than when flying a trike. So, the tail-dragger aircraft is a better teacher, but once the skills are learned where are you?

This perspective is based on having owned a Citabria and now I own and operate an RV-8. I 'learned' to fly in a C152, learned much more owning and operating tail-draggers. When I have an opportunity (like taking a BFR) I try to fly in trike (DA-40, Barron, or my friends Cardinal RG). All fine aircraft and each have their own unique characteristics.

Since I haven't ever owned one and the 'other man's grass is greener', I'd like to have a retractable gear TRIKE with some speed....like a Turbine Legend or Lancair IVP. (I'd settle for trading up to a Rocket.) Really just looking for more SPEED. Oh well, there is always something on the shopping list and I'm glad I have FSX to give me a taste of speed.

 

[kilo delta]

Any of my RW training was in tricycle geared a/c (C150/C152,C172 and Socata Rallye) mainly due to the fact that there wasn't any taildraggers available for training.
Ideally..I'd love to train in (and own) an RV-7...not an A model though!

 

[Curtis P40]

I learned to fly in Piper 140/180's. After getting my PPL I joined the Civil Air Patrol and started flying their PA-18 Super Cub. Landings and especially X- wind landings were always a challenge for me in the 140/180's. In the Super Cub they were a piece of cake. Don't know if it was tail dragger vs Trike or stick in the right hand and left hand on the throttle vs that control wheel thingy. All I know is it made flying a lot funner.

 

[SkippyBing]

To some extent it comes down to the psychology of learning and what the end aim is, i.e. being able to fly a plane.
As with most things it's best to start off on the easy stuff and then move to the harder stuff. For example you don't have calculus as the first thing you teach children about maths, you start off with 2 + 2 = 4.
So if it's harder to learn to fly in a tail dragger (don't know never taken off or landed one and after that they're the same!) it will ultimately produce better pilots, however it will probably take longer and have a higher drop out rate.
To take it to extremes, the English Electric Lightning was something of a challenge to fly, consequently the RAF didn't put baby pilots in the cockpit and say crack on, learn on this and you'll be a better pilot. They had a program that worked up to flying it using progressively more difficult types as stepping stones to get there.
So what do you mean by 'better teacher' the one who gets the most students to achieve the aim - flying a plane, or the one who produces the students best at doing it?