Nose v tailwheel

[ahlocks]

Some people just have big noses. ;)

Oops..

 

I should have turned me webcam off aye wot...:clown:

 

 

[facthunter]

After time.

 

As far as the increase in nosewheel popularity is concerned, that is inevitable, however "bagging the alternative " is a bit "OFF" particularly from people who haven't flown them. I don't see any criticisms coming from the people who fly these machines. The inference is that they (the pilots) are "macho" or trying to prove something. Big assumption there. I personally would like more pilots to experience the satisfaction that I get from flying my Citabria, or anything similar, because it is a Basic real aeroplane, and doesn't cost megabucks. the questioning of the place of taildraggers, you take it as funny for the first 5 years or so, then you just wonder where all this stuff is coming from. From my own point of view, I couldn't care less,as an individual, but a lot of people read these statements and absorb it, and think there must be some truth in it. I don't see too many tricycle cropdusters or aerobatic aircraft or Red Bull racers about. Some people may be put off by it and that would be a pity, as they will rule out some very nice aeroplanes from their consideration.

 

Tony is right , that just getting a tailwheel endorsement is not so easy these days, and IF you do get one, make sure that it is done properly.

 

Tailwheel aircraft are inherently directionally unstable, because If a turn on the ground, is commenced for any reason, the tyres, which are in front of the centre of gravity act in such a way as to generate forces that tend to tighten the turn. The result can be what is called a "groundloop", however a nosewheel aircraft can do it as well, IF the nosewheel contacts the ground before the mains do, and being often linked to the rudder, can put great sideloads on the nosewheel assembly. The nosewheel is not the total answer , particularly where the aircraft must be built to a restrictive weight which limits strength, although it does offer a simplified control situation in good conditions. Nev

 

PS> HEON That was probably the Bell Aircobra... N.. .

 

 

[hihosland]

Italian Caprioni was building nose wheel aircraft circa 1910 or thereabouts

 

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Heon. aircobra i think it was.

 

just reading the story on eugenes elys first landing and take off from an ship in 1911 in a curtis pusher looked like it had a nosewheel.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

There are Pilots and there are Aviators.

 

Adam.

 

 

[Guest ROM]

Bell mid engined Airacobra P39's later called P400's.

 

The nose wheel undercarriage configuration enabled them to keep operating under appalling airfield conditions during the Battle for Guadalcanal in the Solomons in 1942 when the more convential tail wheel equipped aircraft or what was left of them could not operate due to thee constant rain making the airfield a hell hole.

 

The Russians got some Airacobras in mid 1942 and then asked for more.

 

A lot of these P39's were flown by stages through a specially set up strips and a supply system up through western Canada and across into Alaska where they were picked up by Russian pilots who then flew them across Russia to the Eastern Front.

 

The British thought they were dogs and the American's agreed as they could not climb nor dogfight above 12,000 feet but they were good at ground attack and were used right through to towards the end of the war as ground attack aircraft.

 

The Russians thought they were terrific and just kept asking for more and eventually got over 5000 P39 Airacobras of various marks.

 

The Allison engine was mid mounted behind the cockpit with the propeller shaft running between the pilot's legs.

 

The cockpit entrance was through a car type door which was a real problem when trying to bail out.

 

 

[Thx1137]

Me, I'm a 'driver' by the sounds of it. Doesn't matter to me as long as it get me off the ground and isn't a balloon. :-)

 

I was interested to know why many people here seemed to like the taildraggers too and I think that has been well and truly answered!

 

Steven.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

:faint:Aw shucks Thx1137, now your picking on the severely disadvantaged, Balloonists have neither a nosewheel or tailwheel. otherwise i am with you, I don't care where my wheels are (as long as they are dangling down and locked )

 

DD ;)

 

 

[Thx1137]

:faint:Aw shucks Thx1137, now your picking on the severely disadvantaged, Balloonists have neither a nosewheel or tailwheel. otherwise i am with you, I don't care where my wheels are (as long as they are dangling down and locked )DD ;)

LOL! To each their own. :-)

 

Steven.

 

 

[ahlocks]

LOL! To each their own. :-)Steven.

Ahhh.... reality settles back in...:yin_yan:

 

 

[Guest Rufus]

Fella's

 

I wasn't having a shot at anyone. I was simply wondering why a taildragger pilot felt the need to boast that a taildragger takes more of a man to fly than a trike.

 

By the way, Curtis is the bloke I was refering to in 1911.

 

A nose wheel for the first departure of a ship. Why didn't he use a tail wheel ?? I don't know or care, for petes sake, both types fly!

 

When I learnt to fly, in 1975, I was taught that an aircraft was flying when the wings created enough lift for the plane to become airborne. Before that, you were driving on wheels, nose or tailwheel. Once you had lift off, you became a pilot.

 

I didn't realise how touchy people can be, so I'll end my input to this thread.

 

Good night, see you at the field.

 

Roger Mac

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

Actually, I have a honest question on this topic, I've always wondered.

 

This is NOT a biting question, so no snippy responses please ;)

 

Having only ever flown in nosewheel, I've always wondered how the ground visibility differs when taxiing in tail wheel aircraft, with the higher angle of the aircraft? Does it limit visibility? I assume once in the air, there is no difference, and I realise they land a bit different, but some tail wheel aircraft have such a high nose attitude on the ground, I'd sort of wondered how people see the ground to taxi ;) Especially on low wing aircraft.

 

I've also seen some warbirds needing to weave while taxiing to see in front of them. Seems a lot of work?

 

Thanks for the answers

 

Scotty

 

Oh, I'm talking full cockpit-type aircraft, not open cockpit ;) Drifter has pretty good vis ;>

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yes there are visibility issues with most taildraggers large radials in paticular. taxying needs to be done using "S" turns to clear the way ahead. many deadly accidents were taildraggers have run over other aircraft. one example was warbird taking out a RV at airventure couple of years ago. some footage around were a radial taxis over a car and a mustang into the rear of a helicopter. nasty.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Good questions Scotty.

 

 

Depends a lot on the individual type of course. Some types such as the Thruster with the high forward mounted engine, have excellent forward visibility, but most taildraggers have some degree of restriction and many have a great deal.

 

 

This accounts for the practice of the ‘weaving taxi’ so you can look down the side of the nose at the ground right in front of you.

 

 

The low wing types are no great drama as via weaving you can see the ground right up to the wing leading edge.

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

Might be a silly question, but has anyone fitted one of those reversing cameras so commonly used in cars today, to the front of their aircraft, to help with this? They're pretty cheap now, light, and use little power.

 

This ones from Jaycar...$199

 

Jaycar Electronics

 

Had wondered if this might help some. Not a perfect solution, but...if it works in bulky 4x4's ;)

 

 

[facthunter]

Visibility.

 

It is not a silly question Rocko, but you have the exact same visibility when taxiing, as you do when you 3-point. The series of "S" turns is the only way to be sure if anything is in front of you, when taxiing. This is no different to "clearing your nose" when climbing. Just a matter of correct technique. Side-by side is more of a problem than tandem as you can look out both sides equally with tandem seating. The use of the video TV aid would be ok but I can't imagine using it for landing, and there is always a shortage of space on an aircraft dashboard. Nev..

 

 

[Tomo]

Might be a silly question, but has anyone fitted one of those reversing cameras so commonly used in cars today, to the front of their aircraft, to help with this? They're pretty cheap now, light, and use little power. This ones from Jaycar...$199

Jaycar Electronics

 

Had wondered if this might help some. Not a perfect solution, but...if it works in bulky 4x4's ;)

If I'm thinking straight, I think the new A380 airbus actually has a camera of some sort on the back tail fin, facing forward, so you can see pretty much everything that's coming at you....for taxing purposes only I would imagine....

 

 

[Guest weekendwarrior]

It is not a silly question Rocko, but you have the exact same visibility when taxiing, as you do when you 3-point. The series of "S" turns is the only way to be sure if anything is in front of you, when taxiing. This is no different to "clearing your nose" when climbing. Just a matter of correct technique. Side-by side is more of a problem than tandem as you can look out both sides equally with tandem seating. The use of the video TV aid would be ok but I can't imagine using it for landing, and there is always a shortage of space on an aircraft dashboard. Nev..

I have read somewhere (AVweb I guess) than they plan on using a video camera on the Aerion supersonic bizjet, in order to avoid having to install a moving nose like on the Concord (not a tailwheel but very high angle of attack on approach preventing to see the runway). Cheaper (the camera, not the plane, 80 MUSD a piece:yuk:)

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

Actually, I wasn't suggesting the camera for landing...just taxiing. I assumed the forward vis would be pretty much identical, until the flare, for both types?

 

But, wouldn't the higher nose attitude restrict taxiing vis directly in front with a tailwheel than nosewheel?

 

Suppose it depends totally on the aircraft config. You could have a nosewheel aircraft with high engine cowl and big dash, with crappy forward vis, and another tailwheel with lower dash, shorter, lower nose, which would have better vis. Each aircraft would be different, I guess.

 

 

[bushcaddy105]

Depends on the aircraft!

 

Have a look at pictures of a BushCaddy taildragger (e.g. my avatar) Visibility tail down is better than many nosewheelers; at flying attitude nothing less than superb. All pilots who have flown it just keep climbing at first, until they adjust to the view over the nose.

 

 

[Tomo]

G'day Rocko, just looked on ebay and they have a wireless camera there for around the $110 mark...cheap enough just for an experiment I reckon, to see how effective it really would be...here's the link to one of them..*NEW* 3.5" LCD WIRELESS REVERSING CAMERA- NIGHT VISION - eBay Other Car Audio, Video, Audio, Video, Car Parts, Accessories, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 07-Nov-08 21:33:00 AEDST)

 

Cheers,

 

 

[facthunter]

Forward vis.

 

Rocko, MOST tailwheel aircraft have poor forward vis in the 3-point attitude, and for this reason there is a need to get the tail up early on take-off although for a low-time pilot there are good reasons to delay it (related to control authority, gyroscopic precession etc.)

 

In real terms you can operate an aircraft (If you have to) with not a lot of forward visibility. (The RYAN of Lindberg fame had NO forward visibility at all). The visibility can be reduced if you encounter drizzle on base, or get an engine oil leak in any aircraft.(tractor)

 

Long nosed taildraggers doing short field approaches, may choose to do a low turning approach for maximum visibility, as the nose is higher on this type of approach, but it would be a similar situation for a nosewheel aircraft doing a correct technique approach on a soft /short or rough field.

 

My comments re the "TV screen" relates to a split technique concept for forward vis.. I would rather stick to the Mk1 eyeball and where there are people around as at an airshow etc I wouldn't taxi under power without wingmen, or signals. Gadgets (if I can use the term loosely) can be distracting and become an end in themselves. I don't rule them out, but they have to be justified and sometimes that is hard to do. Nev

 

 

[Guest Herb]

I think the sticker should be: REAL PILOTS 3 POINT

 

That will throw the cat among the pigeons.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I reckon the only division should be....Those that do fly, and those poor unfortunate people that don't....

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

I'm waiting for someone who flies a seaplane to get a sticker which says "Wheels are for pussies!" ;>