Tail drager or tricycle ?

[David Isaac]

......The tricycle is just more directionally stable once all wheels touch the ground, and while taxying - you don't need a mate to hold a wing.Taildraggers came from the "all over field" days when you could land into wind no matter which way it was blowing. ......

You correctly refer to early tail draggers Tubz, not so much the newer models. You don't need to wing walk a modern tailer which is equipped with brakes such as a C180/185 or a Citabria or Decathalon any more than a typical tricycle geared aircraft, except in very high wind conditions where a wing walker is an asset no matter what the under gear ( I had severe winds lift one wheel of a C172 taxiing on a day I should not have been flying and a wing walker would have been a real asset).

Modern tail wheelers will handle the same cross winds as a tricycle if not more in the hands of a good pilot. Yes they are a handful in a cross wind but I wouldn't hesitate to land a C180 in the same strong crosswinds I would tackle in a C182, its just that you need to be more alert and you have way much more fun in the C180 ... but ... the C180 landing wont be as pretty in a strong crosswind as the C182 .. LOL

 

 

[kaz3g]

one day everyone will wise up and realise that tail draggers are like hand start engines and navigating without gps etc old fashioned and difficult and more risk of damage for no reason also check the insurance rate for a tail wheel version compared with a nose wheel version the tail wheel is a lot dearer for a reason

And what's wrong with hand start engines and navigating without a GPS? It's all about skills and experience and some of us are up for more than others. Some like speed and glass cockpits... I'm happy with 100 knots and steam.

 

If I'm unlucky enough to have an EF, I'll still have a much better chance of survival than you in your nosewheel rocket. i might even walk away with no damage to me or my taildragger which stalls at 24 knots and doesn't have a Nosewheel to collapse and turn me over.

 

And how many competitive truly aerobatic aircraft do you see with nose wheels? More efficient i.e. less drag with a TW. And more fun!

 

It's what you enjoy that counts. I just happen to enjoy flying TW.

 

Kaz

 

 

[aro]

Because its been proven time and again that starting simple , allows the learner to reinforce the correct things to memory, consciousness and motor unit development(ie muscle memory) .

I dont think anyone in here would say that a tail-dragger is easier or easy to land for a novice. And that is the reason why it should be taught after a pilot can get the other basics right first.

Actually, I am saying that a tailwheel is not significantly more difficult for a novice. Zibi is correct, learning in a tricycle tends to reinforce incorrect things to memory and muscle memory. Primarily, the expectation that the aircraft will look after itself after touchdown. A tricycle pilot learning to land tends to sigh with relief when the wheels touch, let the nosewheel down and relax. With a tailwheel you learn that you are still doing ~30-40 knots, still have airspeed and need to positively control the aircraft at that point. Which is a good idea in any aircraft.

 

According to the Budd Davisson article, when Champs and Cherokees were used side by side the typical time to solo was 8 hours in both. I took about 12 hours to solo in a tailwheel. Would I have soloed sooner in a nosewheel aircraft? I doubt it. Budd Davisson also says that tailwheel conversions typically take about the same time as soloing from scratch. Since the initial 8 hours undoubtedly included more than just takeoffs and landings, it suggests that it takes more time to unlearn tricycle habits and muscle memory than it takes to learn to land a tailwheel from scratch. I am sure in your education and training skills you know the concept of primacy - the first way you learn something has a very strong effect, and is difficult to alter. Habits learned in a nosewheel aircraft are difficult to break.

 

Tailwheels are slightly more challenging - the same as RAA aircraft can be slightly more challenging than a Warrior or C172. Nobody suggests you need to learn in an easier C172 before taking on an RAA aircraft. In the whole process of learning to land an aircraft, the tailwheel part is not the most difficult.

 

I'm not saying everyone needs to fly tailwheel or whatever. All I am saying is, based on my observations, if you want to fly tailwheel, and have the opportunity to do your initial training in a tailwheel, it is worth taking that opportunity.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think I may be missing something is a tail wheel easier or harder to handle in a gusty wind than a nose wheeland yes I believe on very rough airstrips a tail dragger is the go but how many people use rough airstrips

It depends on the aeroplane (and the pilot). The more modern TWs are relatively docile but the older ones are more of a challenge such as Austers and even Tigers.

 

As was said above, those early aircraft including many warbirds, were designed for all-over airfields so they are a bit of a challenge in cross winds. The Spitfire had mains that opened in so the had a narrow track and were not easy to land and taxi, especially with that long nose. The Hurricane had wide landing gear and a slight drop to the nose was therefore much easier.

 

Kaz

 

 

[aro]

You correctly refer to early tail draggers Tubz, not so much the newer models.

Newer meaning what - post WW2? It's a long time since most taildraggers needed wing walkers. Tiger Moths I guess if a wind is blowing and maybe Spitfires etc with narrow gear. I'm not sure what else.

 

I have taxied no problems in a wind where I had problems putting the aircraft in the hangar - it kept weathervaning, until I figured out I needed to push it in backwards standing on the downwind side of the tail.

 

If you want exciting taxiing in the wind, try a tricycle with castoring nose gear.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Newer meaning what - post WW2? ....

That is exactly what I meant. Even my Auster with its huge wing 37' and a stall at 24knts VSo (pre WWII design) could do with a wing walk occasionally. Even though it has heel brakes (I don't like heel brakes) they are not very effective some time after 100 hrlys).

It is amazing how she will handle a brisk crosswind with her nice big rudder ... again not pretty, but who cares as long as she is on the ground and into wind.

 

Off course if the wind is 25 knts plus on the nose, you may be landing stationary if not going backwards ... LOL. Even tied down on the ropes she could easy lift off in a stiff wind. Speaking of that I have seen footage of a few aircraft flying 'on the ropes' in strong winds.

 

 

[aro]

That is exactly what I meant.

I know, I was actually agreeing with your point. I was just pointing out that "newer" in this context doesn't have to be particularly new.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I am sure in your education and training skills you know the concept of primacy - the first way you learn something has a very strong effect, and is difficult to alter. Habits learned in a nosewheel aircraft are difficult to break.

You raise an interesting point, but primacy is a whole text book on its own.

Unfortunately what you say about primacy is only one tiny aspect of the subject. Primacy is a massive study area on its own and there are studys showing time and again that primacy "in the way you mention it" is not a big hurdle unless its teaching a skill that has to be totally removed and undone. In fact primacy introduces many reason why a nose dragger should be used first. Primacy would support what i have previously said about introducing certain skills and building upon them. The introduction of one skill to be later used in a different way is also primacy, as is building on a skill to include variations. In that case you are using primacy to accelerate later learning.

 

The only real argument where primacy would go against using a nose dragger first is if you "assume and are proven to be correct" that more then 50% of instructors are teaching incorrect techniques in trikes and thats certainly not the case. But thats not really about which should go first , thats a separate discussion about instructor ability to teach correct / incorrect techniques, and then if that was proven we have some big reasons to alter the current teaching recommendations.

 

In fact a much bigger use for primacy in learning to fly is to provide interruptions during flight lessons and flight training and use these interruptions and primacy to accelerate learning and memory, but thats a whole forum thread on its own. One example is that two half flights (assuming no time wasted taxing etc which isnt true) are far more effective seperated by say a 20min or 30 min break then a one hour session non stop. This has a strong effect on skill development /retention and both memory and muscle memory. This is primacy being used in a well proven beneficial way.

 

Aro - I for one have never been taught to relax once the gear is on the ground in fact i was vigilantly taught the complete opposite, that the gear on the ground does not mean your safe to relax, it only means that the gear has for the moment taken PART of the load from the wing, and that you must have active feet and hands at all times till you are at walking pace and even then, depending on conditions the wing can easily take much of the weight again and get you in strife. Similarly i have not been taught to land both wheels down in a cross wind, i have been taught to land my trike just like a dragger on one wheel and hold it on one wheel till it wont, then hold off hold off and gradually let the nose wheel down when your running out of force available to keep it up.

 

Yes there are some shockers of instructors out there but it is a HUGE assumption to assume more are teaching the wrong techniques in trikes, or that only trike instructors teach wrong techniques.

 

 

[facthunter]

Can we stop the nose dragger term now? Tail dragger I can wear because it does and it is back down there at the back and descriptive. As far as the nose wheel goes, when the weight of the plane is on IT you are in more strife than Speed Gordon especially in a crosswind. Don't think this has been mentioned so far, but do it with a Jabiru and you won't be a happy fellow for long.

 

This is a fault with most tricycle gear planes where in a strong gusty wind you have to keep a higher approach speed for control purposes and there is a good chance the nosewheel will end up with too much weight on it, "wheelbarrow" and get you into a lot of trouble.. You can PIN a tailwheel equipped plane on the ground as long as there is enough prop clearance by raising the tail on a "wheeler" landing. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH, we did a few hours with the pre-modification J170 perfecting landings in gusty conditions with about 200 mm nose wheel clearance. That minimised the helicoptering and still gave us protection from inadvertent wheel barrowing/bouncing - a bit like the MIG mentioned elsewhere, but that was more a J170 "type" trick.

 

I was taught right from scratch to avoid nose down by always making sure the control was moving progressively backwards from the touchdown. There were a few taught point and shoot though, and we've seen a number of nose legs trashed.

 

 

[facthunter]

In the first years of the demise of the T/W as a primary trainer ( Mid 60's) , there were a very large number of serious wheelbarrowing events happen. Having trained on a very short strip situation (district Park Newcastle) and done all my initial flying in DHC-1 and DH-82 and Auster, I just couldn't believe what was happening with the trikes. We continued to land the Cessna's with the stall warning activating before touchdown as a desired technique. I think larger Aerodromes encourage a lazy technique of carrying a lot of extra speed and just flying the plane onto the ground. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

Hi Nev, just joking with Nose dragger, but yes we should cease it as the term might encourage some newb to think incorrect technique.

 

With regard to larger aerodromes, i still think it comes back to instructors. I have flown with 4 instructors and all 4 have been vigilant about use of the nose wheel and we have almost 2km to play with, not that we ever use even 1/3rd of that . Id almost say that the use of a fully weighted nose wheel is never used. But thats probably slight exaggeration, perhaps never desirable and hardly ever used is a better term. So again it comes back to the quality of instructors not the aircraft chosen. Im happy to say from my experience all 4 are teaching correct technique and there is probably 35years age differential, but i can only speak of my experience. Id be interested to hear from someone who can actually say they know of a case "today" being taught wrong. Sure there will be many examples going back in time, but hopefully we have evolved to better standards all round.

 

And in terms of trikes copping incorrect instruction, i love watching AC land, and i have seen many many TD flyers who dont even worry about for aft balance of the aircraft they just smash the tail wheel in and let it drop, then try to glue 3 wheels to the ground. So it works both ways. Some sloppy sloppy landings indeed..but you see that with all aircraft

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

What are the main real world benefits of a tail dragger do you think? Apart from style and class!

(1) Better performance (no nosewheel in the propeller slipstream).

 

(2) Better (yes, better) crosswind capability. A nosewheel aircraft is limited by "wheelbarrowing"; whereas (provided you have sufficient runway) you can fly a tailwheel aircraft onto the ground, using the "one wing low" technique, at its cruise speed. If the crosswind is strong enough, you'll round-up into wind at the end of the landing roll, whereas a wheelbarrow accident due to the nosewheel touching down before the main wheels, is likely to end up with the aircraft cartwheeling. However, if the wind is that strong, you can generally land across the runway (yes, I have done this on occasion).

 

(3) Usually, more effective water drainage from the fuel system (if the fuel system is properly designed).

 

(4) Much better propeller clearance whilst taxiing.

 

 

[facthunter]

Less maintenance, less weight and overall more strength available in the U/Carriage. Cheaper and simpler construction. Nosewheel assy gets in the way of many things aft of the engine, like radiator with Suby the nosewheel on a U/L is never strong enough to cop a rabbit hole or a side load of any significance and when you wipe it off the plane it will usually tip right over, and if it is a low wing you might have trouble getting out of it.

 

Disadvantages. Directional control, view to front when taxiing ( do S turns) View to front when in the hold off (Look sideways). Can't apply brakes heavily. Insurance companies don't like insuring them unless you have logged a lot of hours in them. Nev

 

 

[crashley]

interesting post from vans site

 

I prefer to look at the tail-dragger/nose-dragger debate as a matter of evolution.

 

Many years ago pre-man was pretty hairy and was designed to be a "knuckle dragger" that we know today as the ape. Over time man evolved into the elegant and well-adapted being that we all know today. There's an analogy in aircraft history. The tail-dragger came first but over time a design evolved that was better suited to getting into and out of the air without ground-looping because of a misplaced center of gravity. :D As some have noted, insurance companies recognize the superior design when they give tricycle gear planes better rates.

 

Now some folks will argue that real "pilots" (not real men) fly tail-draggers implying they somehow posess superior flying skills. In reality, the skill needed with a tail-dragger has nothing to do with flying and everything to do with ground control (aka "driving"). I'd love to hear a LOGICAL argument that explains why the group of pilots with the supposedly superior skills (tail-dragger pilots) have to pay higher insurance than those inferior nose-wheel pilots. If there was actually any data to support the difference in skill levels argument that would be even better. :D

 

Its my opinion, supported by no more data than you'll find in this note, that tricycle gear pilots have demonstrated the ability to exercise the most crucial of flying skills - good judgement. They selected the safer aircraft to fly rather than the better looking airplane (yeah, even I gotta admit that tail-dragger planes are better looking).

 

Don RV-9AAAAAAAAAAA (fuselage)

 

No flames please....this was sent tongue in cheek....mostly.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

interesting post from vans siteI prefer to look at the tail-dragger/nose-dragger debate as a matter of evolution.

Many years ago pre-man was pretty hairy and was designed to be a "knuckle dragger" that we know today as the ape. Over time man evolved into the elegant and well-adapted being that we all know today. There's an analogy in aircraft history. The tail-dragger came first but over time a design evolved that was better suited to getting into and out of the air without ground-looping because of a misplaced center of gravity. :D As some have noted, insurance companies recognize the superior design when they give tricycle gear planes better rates.

 

Now some folks will argue that real "pilots" (not real men) fly tail-draggers implying they somehow posess superior flying skills. In reality, the skill needed with a tail-dragger has nothing to do with flying and everything to do with ground control (aka "driving"). I'd love to hear a LOGICAL argument that explains why the group of pilots with the supposedly superior skills (tail-dragger pilots) have to pay higher insurance than those inferior nose-wheel pilots. If there was actually any data to support the difference in skill levels argument that would be even better. :D

 

Its my opinion, supported by no more data than you'll find in this note, that tricycle gear pilots have demonstrated the ability to exercise the most crucial of flying skills - good judgement. They selected the safer aircraft to fly rather than the better looking airplane (yeah, even I gotta admit that tail-dragger planes are better looking).

 

Don RV-9AAAAAAAAAAA (fuselage)

 

No flames please....this was sent tongue in cheek....mostly.

Stir the pot by all means; it's an interminable debate. However I recall that the insurance issue arose originally in relation to tail draggers used in flying schools. If you look at a Beech Skipper when it has its access panels removed for a major inspection, you will realise that it is in reality an extra heavy-duty undercarriage with the bare minimum of wings, seats and engine to allow it to fly. Rod Stiff once commented that every time he increased the strength of the nose undercarriage, a new breed of idiot arose to break it. It ended up about 2.5 times the strength required by FAR Part 23, and now people break the fuselage instead. The fact is that the advent of things like the Skipper allowed a broadening of the range of people that could be taught to fly; and those people need (bloody strong) tricycle undercarriages. But the majority of agricultural aircraft and "bush" aircraft are still tail-draggers, and for good reason.

 

The directional control of a tailwheel aircraft on the ground is not difficult, provided it has: (i) Good tailwheel steering and (ii) Good differential brakes. The heavier ones (e.g. Ayres Bull Thrush) also benefit from a tailwheel lock. But you do have to learn to use your feet.