The International Cessna 170 Association

I don’t agree. I believe they make us better pilots.

https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-pro ... gers-suck/

Nice article. So because author couldn’t hack it that means taildraggers suck.

If "Tail-draggers Suck" do "Nose-draggers Blow"?

I believe he finally approaches the truth in the last 4 paragraphs…. beginning with:

Honestly, though, I think that a big part of these airplanes’ continuing appeal is their demanding nature. Tailwheel pilots are essentially members of a self-selecting masochists’ club and take a certain sort of pride in their machines’ anachronistic faults. There’s an elitist dynamic at work: You can watch only so many 172s being artlessly driven onto the ground without wanting to set yourself apart. Flying taildraggers gives you instant street cred, a presumption of competence that opens up new opportunities. As a Luscombe-owning acquaintance says, “I get handed the keys to people’s nosedragger airplanes all the time, but the reverse never happens.”

The real difference is that tricycle gear can tolerate and mask a great deal of sloppiness, whereas most taildraggers make even a small amount of imprecision abundantly clear. They are the equivalent of a perfectionist CFI riding with you on every flight, relentlessly critiquing your landings.

The reality is that taildraggers don’t fly or land that much differently from a well-flown tricycle-gear aircraft. …The real difference is that tricycle gear can tolerate and mask a great deal of sloppiness, whereas most taildraggers make even a small amount of imprecision abundantly clear. They are the equivalent of a perfectionist CFI riding with you on every flight, relentlessly critiquing your landings.

This enforced precision does wonders to strengthen stick-and-rudder skills. At work, I actually notice a difference in the quality of my landings in 160,000-pound McDonnell-­Douglas airliners based on whether I’ve flown the Pacer or Cub lately. Taildraggers teach you to use peripheral vision and pay attention to the seat of your pants. They make you “fly it till you park it.” They reward watchfulness, discourage complacency and prime you to go around (usually the only correct response to a botched touchdown). Most of all, taildraggers enforce humility, because even the best pilots are regularly faced with clear evidence of their fallibility.
….

johneeb wrote:If "Tail-draggers Suck" do "Nose-draggers Blow"?

Your logic is sound.

GAHorn wrote:I don’t agree. I believe they make us better pilots.

https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-pro ... gers-suck/

I don’t think an airplane makes us a better pilot. We make ourselves better pilots by practice and effort, no matter what aircraft we fly. I agree with George that taildraggers are more demanding and we benefit from flying them. Tail draggers are also best suited for short strips or rough runway conditions which should be enough to keep them relevant and necessary in many parts.

I think the article overthinks the subject but is, nonetheless an interesting read. Flying Magazine has changed in recent years and become upscale. I still appreciate Peter Garrison, but miss old Richard Collins. Martha Lunkin is always good for a laugh and I’ll bet she would chime in on this topic.

Remember the court ruling, that they are inherently unsafe.

I had trouble landing a 172 until I bought my 170A . Now I feel like I can land a 172 with my eyes closed. (Wouldn’t attempt it) I’m a more of an aware pilot now. So yes I believe it made me a better pilot .

George captured this in his quote above, but I especially chuckled over this:

Tailwheel pilots are essentially members of a self-selecting masochists’ club and take a certain sort of pride in their machines’ anachronistic faults.

Seriously though, the entire reason I currently own a C170B, is because I knew learning in one would force our son to become a better pilot. And, I can attest from personal observation that it did just that. Years later, both of us would end up flying as a crew in a B757. We'd both be wanting to do the landing under crosswind conditions that I had seen other F/O's shy away from. I got to proudly watch our son put the aircraft down, straight and true, with absolutely no sideways lurch that is the tattletale of landing with even a slight crab. I attribute his skill directly to learning in a tailwheel, and highly recommend it to anyone wanting to learn to fly. The lessons learned earliest, are the ones learned best.

Sounds like he was basking in self-congratulations and quit flying the airplane before he shut it down:

Back at Airlake Airport, I surprised myself with an artful crosswind landing and was feeling pretty good as I taxied off the runway. Then a mighty gust caught the little J-3…

BTW, I became a member of the “those that have” club in a J-3 just a few hours into my taildragging career. After several excursions back and forth across the centerline the airplane did a 270 to the right, coming to a stop in the grass perpendicular to the paved runway nicely centered between runway lights. Fortunately, no fabric contacted the runway. This was before tail wheel endorsements, and my “checkout” had consisted only of the 3 hours of dual required by the club’s insurance, most of which was on grass and little to no wind. A few more hours of training and an introduction into the art of the wheel landing and I was good to go.

Miles your story is tragic, and frighteningly too common. I find myself wondering how any instructor could sign a tailwheel endorsement without finding some significant crosswind in which to give the endorsee some practice, and on paved runways. I know it's often troublesome to find the right conditions with time available for instruction/practice, but consider the consequences of overlooking this critical component of a complete checkout! Thankfully the lesson came cheap in your own experience. Thanks for sharing.

When I have taken passengers for a fly and they remark that was a good landing , my response is “ yes , I had my eyes closed “.