Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 1:35:39 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:



Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't
handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big
impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any
airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The
pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW
endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8







maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and
flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement
but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes
within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.



Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or
women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's
not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the
demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our
club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat
available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the
transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury
of having a two-place towplane...

The difference between Tailwheel and training wheel tow pilot insurance
requirements is a TW endorsement and a little TW time. It's a very
modest requirement. They are going to want 200 hours SEL time for any
high performance tow plane, that's usually the main issue. Wasn't always
this way, but Costello revisited this a couple years ago and the
requirements went down (a lot) for some of this stuff.

T8

I've towed behind a 172 at Sky Soaring. For my Ka-6 it was nice. This
particular one was an early straight tail no rear window model with a 180
horse constant speed prop. The light weight and big motor made it a decent
tug.

Pete