I have a neighbor that is interested in learning to fly. He wants to be able to use a plane during the work week. The job requires no regular hours and can be on his own schedule so there will be no get-there- itis. VFR should work.
The base he will work out of is 200-300 miles from home. He will land off airport at each contact's location in the west river area of South Dakota so he is expecting some dirt roads, long driveways and pastures with rolling terrain. Sounds like 130-150 mph tail dragger work.

He asked my opinion if he could start from scratch with no flying experience and complete a PPL in the year's time he has before the job term begins and be able to handle the off airport work. I know this individual well enough to say he has no trouble making decisions and is a quick thinker and is about 60 yrs old.

My answer was if he would take his initial training in a tailwheel aircraft, preferably the one he will fly in, then I think it is doable. But, if he starts in the 172 and has to transition, then his comfort level/confidence factor is going to take a hit at transition not to mention the extra time for the endorsement. This way it would leave him the time after getting the PPL to develop the techniques for scouting landing sites and gain some experience in the judgement of sites from the air. He can go with me for some of that.

Step one will be choosing the aircraft for this purpose and then just getting after it. This person is not employed at the present as he completed the work in a similar position closer to home for this company but was able to do it from his car. He is prepared to spend up to 100,000 on the plane.
So now, my trusted friends, what else should be considered or would you not attempt this yourself?

It sounds to me that most of his stops would not be especially rough. It also sounds like they may or may not be well aligned to the prevailing winds. Since flying isn't going to be his main job, he may be fatigued some of the time. I know this won't be a popular answer, but I think a tricycle gear plane would be safer. It will handle cross winds better and will be more forgiving of landing imperfections. On the other hand, if the guy "wants" a tail dragger, for the fun of it, he may as well. It all depends on how much work vs play he is thinking of.

tom

Wasn't that many years ago that ALL primary training was in conventional gear aircraft, using dirt fields, pastures, roads, etc. No reason in the world why you can't now. The problem isn't in the ability of the student, rather it's the lack of instructors who can do it.

Gump

Having learned in a Citabria, I'd recommend starting off in an American Champion Aurora or Scout but a realistic ground speed would be closer to 70/100 mph depending on winds. Owning a plane rather than renting has lots of advantages, none of which are financial, in my case. I think the job may be a great excuse to get a PPL and plane but I would caution that the common condition should be you can't use the plane for the trip; only "if the stars align"...

You say there would be no "get there itis". Can the job wait a week because the weather is bad today and the mechanic will start the annual tomorrow?

Then there is the case where it is easy enough to get there, but will you wait until the next morning avoiding "isolated" afternoon thunderstorms. I'm "champing at the bit" on my potential fly to lunch outings because fog is coming in early/late and/or I don't like the look of clouds over the passes and cumuli starting to build behind me.

I don't think time is the problem: at 54, I started in Jan and got my PPL in June, but at least 8 weeks elapsed waiting on weather, club check rides, and finally the DPE.

-Dick

There is no such thing as NO get there-itis, folks. We all bow to the pressure at times. That said, some folks manage that pressure better than others, and generally, new pilots are often more willing to say no than more experienced pilots.

I too would suggest a tri-gear airplane, like the 182. Go find an older one in good shape, equip it properly, and learn to fly in it. Find an instructor who isn't scared to land in unusual places, and he'll find out that 182 will go a LOT of places that many taildragger drivers might hesitate. Big crosswinds on a county road can be pretty interesting. Heck a good 172 can do a lot as well.

If he's going to go with a tailwheel airplane, the Maule comes to mind (okay, admit it--ya knew someone was going to bring that up) but as noted elsewhere, insurance for a low time pilot is going to be muy $$$$. I'd look hard at the old workhorse 182.

The 182 has speed, STOL capability when light, and is comfortable. Prices aren't too bad right now.

If he's near Aberdeen, I know an instructor down there who'd put him through the off airport paces.

MTV

I totally agree with the crosswind argument for the nose wheel plane with "new guy" flying experience but off airport landings here seldom involve a grass strip which complicates the choice for nose wheel aircraft. He will be doing the same kind of flying as I do and that is why he came to me for an opinion. There are four other aircraft owners within 10 miles of him but all are either based near a county oil road or at the airport at the county seat 35 miles away. That would not be practical for me or for him. I am the only one flying off the back roads. Even spray planes here will only use the county oil when filling, none will use the gravel.
I use prop guard too, but even with the best throttle management and rolling run ups I can only reduce some of the prop nicks. That is why I designed fenders for my plane. With the gravel grit and mud coming off my wheels that still get to the prop after rain, dew or frost, I hesitate to think what it would look like if I had a nose wheel right behind it throwing mud or stones toward it. It would be even worse with the ground suck that goes on having the prop that much lower. Even if the nose wheel and gear survive the off road beating of the pasture landings, the gravel/dirt roads and driveways in western South Dakota will cost him dearly at the prop, and roads would make up possibly 50% of his normal landings. For this reason I never suggested to him a nose wheel aircraft. Does anyone else on this site besides me normally operate off dirt or gravel roads and are you flying a nose wheel when its wet out? I apologize for not explaining this better for your understanding when I wrote the intro thread, maybe I thought I would be preaching to the choir.

It's all about technique. I've run Cessna 206 airplanes on wheels on and off almost exclusively gravel strips, and did not experience any unusual prop erosion. Put a piece of rubber hose on that nose strut to keep the nose up, and use proper technique, and it's not a big problem.

Frankly, it sounds to me as if you and he are maybe expecting a LOT from a newly trained pilot. Lots of off airport landings can be done but there's some technique involved there as well. This can all be learned, but if he has the expectation that he's going to be doing all this from scratch in a VERY short period of time, I think there is going to be some pressure there to git er done, and maybe an accident waiting to happen.

Put a low time pilot in a Maule on county roads and pastures, and you're asking for problems. And, I'm not picking on Maules....much.

FWIW

MTV

dirtstrip wrote:Does anyone else on this site besides me normally operate off dirt or gravel roads and are you flying a nose wheel when its wet out?

I somehow gathered 18K hours of mostly single engine Cessna time on wheels in Arctic Alaska, flying heavy on nothing but wet dirt. Some airplanes had fenders, most not, and prop dings were few and far between. Both tri gear and taildraggers.

I still think it's wise to learn in conventional gear, given the type of flying your friend is thinking of doing. Something like a C182 is a great airplane for ANY backcountry flying. But, sooner or later if playing off road he's gonna snag a gopher hole or rut not seen from the air. Tailwheel... No big deal, even if you break it off. Nose gear... Wrinkled firewall, and drug home on a trailer with the wings pulled off. Big deal and big $$$$.

Gump

Thanks for the replies. This is why I post. I am glad to have gotten the pump primed on the question and to have the experience out there to call on. I especially appreciate the direct answers with your own experiences to back it up. One of the best things I will have to offer this neighbor as advice is to have him read this thread. The decision on whether he chooses to go ahead could all depend on what questions and potential problems he sees going in, so the more eyes the better.

If he can get trained in the equipment and environment he wants to operate in, the less he has to "transition". That seems attainable in a year, based on my own first 100 hours TT. I'd drill the ground hazards hard, even if it's the boonies. Fences, speed limit signs, mile markers, cattle guards, overhead wires, vehicles, dust from wind and farm equipment, and spray planes come to mind. I bet you can come up with more to keep a new pilot appropriately puckered.

Let's not miss the point that this guy wants to fly, though. Good on him. Good on you for helping him in his quest.

-DP

Have to agree with Gump again ( boy that guy is smart )
Tail wheel otherwise known as conventional gear is the correct way to learn to fly.
Tail wheel flying teaches what a rudder and brakes and all the controls do to make a plane manageable.
I see so many people these days with a ppl that are just dangerous. If they had been taught in a taildragger they would be better pilots or been washed out and not a danger to themselves or an innocent passenger.

mtv wrote:I too would suggest a tri-gear airplane, like the 182. Go find an older one in good shape, equip it properly, and learn to fly in it. Find an instructor who isn't scared to land in unusual places, and he'll find out that 182 will go a LOT of places that many taildragger drivers might hesitate. Big crosswinds on a county road can be pretty interesting. Heck a good 172 can do a lot as well.

If he's going to go with a tailwheel airplane, the Maule comes to mind (okay, admit it--ya knew someone was going to bring that up) but as noted elsewhere, insurance for a low time pilot is going to be muy $$$$. I'd look hard at the old workhorse 182.

The 182 has speed, STOL capability when light, and is comfortable. Prices aren't too bad right now.

MTV

Going with MTV's line of thought about equipping it properly, I've seen several 182s that have the larger tires on them. As far as getting a little more prop protection/clearance, that could be a good option. The 182 is a great plane and very capable.

Either way he goes, like mentioned before, find a good instructor that can tailor to his objectives with real world experience. Then, after PPL is obtained, fly often to keep the skills honed.