Insurance companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo

That's not true. Insurance companies WILL insure Cubs and Champs and
their ilk for student solo. There's a Cub locally that can be soloed
at 10 hours tailwheel time, 5 hours make and model. Students can solo
it. It's insured - and the owner went cheap on the insurance. He
could have made it the same as the Champ in which I got my tailwheel
signoff - 5 hours tailwheel, CFI checkout - but that cost a bit more.

What insurance companies WON'T insure is students soloing after being
taught by unqualified instructors. The local flgiht school at my home
field has a Citabria on the line, and wants to check out a new
instructor. They plan to take him from zero tailwheel time to giving
dual in a Citabria - in 15 hours. That's when it all goes to hell.
Minimum of 100 (or is it 150) hours total time, private pilot or
better, 15 hours dual instruction in make and model to solo, and a huge
bill for mediocre coverage. The honest truth is that you can't be a
qualified tailwheel instructor with 15 tailwheel hours. Those low time
instructors of yesteryear who taught in Champs and Cubs ALL had 200+
hours tailwheel time and had passed checkrides in taildraggers
themselves.

Flight schools are quick to blame the insurance, but the real problem
is they are unwilling to do what it takes to attract and retain
qualified tailwheel instructors.

That means one of the new planes which seem to
have a base price of 80,000 buckeroos.

Something is severely wrong here.

When I was in the Keys a few months ago, I met a guy who does lessons
(officially, really they are usually rides) in a 2-seat floatplane
ultralight trainer. He says it does just fine getting off the water in
the Florida heat with two big people. It has a Rotax engine, and it is
open cockpit with a dacron-covered wing, but it's a three axis machine,
not a trike. He bought it new, ready to fly (not a kit) for under
$25,000 two years ago, straight from the factory. It also exists in a
landplane form, which is cheaper.

My understanding is that the whole point of Sport Pilot was that such
aircraft could be sold as LSA's, for general non-commercial (except
instruction) use, not as ultralight trainers for instruction only. In
its landplane configuration, it would be a perfectly serviceable
general purpose three axis sport pilot trainer or pleasure craft. Any
garden variety CFI could instruct in it. So what happened?

I suspect that the process the FAA claimed was going to be easy for
manufacturers is still bad enough that it winds up doubling or tripling
the cost of the aircraft. That would be typical. In fact, I will only
believe otherwise if I see those two-seat ultralight trainers selling
as LSA's for no more than 10% more than they cost as UL trainers.

Michael