RobertL18C wrote:
but most qualify for bus passes
Personally I’d chose anyone entitled to a bus pass over someone whose only obvious and admitted ambition was getting their hours up to join an airline….particularly an instructor prepared to offer a half or full day’s pre- and de-briefing, with a background of 20-25,000 hours on several dozen aircraft types.
what_next wrote:
Most taildraggers are vintage types made from wood and fabric. They absolutely need to be hangared. Hangar space is rare and expensive around here. A C152 doesn’t need a hangar.
There is a tailwheel conversion STC for Cessna 152 (as well as for 150, 152, 175, etc.). I know of one based at Enstone EGTN (northside), and if I remember correctly, the owner is an instructor.
I learned to fly in a taildragger 
So did a local friend of mine, in 1976. He’s been flying it regularly ever since but after 40 incident free years and thousands of hours, this photo was taken yesterday. It’s been rebuilt twice before, and it will be again. Treacherous bugger, waiting 40 years to spring this on the owner….
Peter wrote:
I think that to train ab initio in Annex 2 you need to own it, which limits it to people who have a clear vision of their requirements, and money.
Less money than you think. You can get perfectly good (although they are quirky) Austers for under 20k. Someone who struggles to afford to run an Auster is going to struggle to keep flying, if they intend to fly for fun (and I imagine someone opting to start in a tailwheel aircraft is probably not looking at the airline route).
Of course you need to be a proper enthusiast (they often need a bit of care) – for example last year I had to fix the plane three times, but under the LAA system pilot maintenance is encouraged, although many things will need an inspector to check it once you’ve done it, but I think it adds greatly to the learning experience if you’re mechanically inclined.
Incidentally, when I was living in the US, my syndicate partner in our Cessna 140 got his CFI while we owned the plane, he trained his very first ab-initio student in our aircraft. IIRC his student went on to be an A&P/IA.
The thing I love about tail dragger flying is having to be alert at all stages. It can really catch you out. I am getting used to my new Super Cub, squirrely bugger, but good fun. As mentioned above, does not really like concrete. I engaged two individuals to bring it up from Spain for me last month. I got a call on the Saturday night that they had abandoned it in San Sebastien. Too much for them he said. So, as always, if you want it done, do it yourself. Came up La Rochelle!Cherbourg/Wolverhampton/Prestwick. Great flight…I will put a trip report together.
alioth wrote:
You can get perfectly good (although they are quirky) Austers for under 20k. Someone who struggles to afford to run an Auster is going to struggle to keep flying
Austers with the readily maintainable engine are a bit harder to find, but you can get good flyable Luscombes (“no wood, no nails, no glue”), Taylorcraft, Aeroncas and the like for under £12K (or €20K or $20K). All those types are very simple to maintain, moreso than a C150. It’s really a good way to learn flying, but the problem is finding an instructor and the legalities of learning in your own plane.
The other issue is that C150s are available at the same price and while they aren’t sexy, they are practical and easy to sell someday. I do think the more attractive image of the tailwheel plane, the good basic skills built, the low cost of operating a 65 or 85 HP engine, the potential for owner maintenance, and the wonderful appeal of owning something cool have in combination a completely different appeal to somebody thinking about adding flying to their life.
I was not aware of an Annex II restriction on PPL training, are you not thinking about the restriction on training for Permit aircraft? The Super Cub is Annex II, and in the training role it needs to be under a CofA, but even this might be in the process of being reviewed?
Peter wrote:
I think that to train ab initio in Annex 2 you need to own it, which limits it to people who have a clear vision of their requirements, and money.
I don’t think that’s true. At one of my home fields they teach on Tiger Moths; a lot of trial lessons to be sure, but a number of tailwheel conversions (should that be tailskid?) and a few ab initios.
This is very good news in that part-owners can get training whereas previously it was sole (100%) owners only.
You still cannot operate a Permit aircraft in a way where it is hired out for lessons, which is how nearly all PPL training is done (self fly hire with an instructor in the RHS).
Less money than you think. You can get perfectly good (although they are quirky) Austers for under 20k.
Sure, but my point was that the ab initio student has to spend 20k, plus the 10k on the PPL, whereas a “normal” student has to spend nothing, plus the 10k on the PPL and even that expenditure can be truncated if he doesn’t like it and walks away from it. So this is great for people who are really committed to flying from Day 1. I am sure that’s true for a high % of people posting here but is probably true for about 1% of PPL students.
It is also incompatible with the “advice” given by so many: don’t buy a plane; rent for as long as possible and play around with different planes to see what you like. Well, you can guess what I think of that “advice”. It maximises the school’s self fly hire income, until the moment the customer chucks it all in because the high marginal cost of flying makes him chuck it in. It is good advice for someone who learnt to fly just for a good laugh, or for someone who has loads of disposable income.
Why would getting your PPL cost 10K in your own plane? Assuming a small Continental plus instructor in the UK, I’d guess a number more like £4K. The plane itself is £15K. The LAA and ownership route described above would be vastly more interesting to me in the UK than the UK school route.
If they knew about it, I think many prospective pilots would be more interested in flying on that basis, owning something interesting and inexpensive with a tailwheel and getting away from paying for much of anything by the hour.
As always, the practicality revolves around finding suitable storage for the plane.
