Tricycle vs taildragger

[Guest Qwerty]

I prefer the term conventional undercarriage. It covers both setups (wheels and skids) and places this configuration in its correct context. Tricycle undercariage is a late-comer and is a bit of a novelty, I doubt that it will catch on much, except may be with the ladies.. :peepwall:

 

 

[Tigershark21]

I agree with Qwerty ,there is a difference between tail draggers and tail wheel aircraft and the like, but I was told once by an ex WWII pilot that aircraft sitting with their Ar$e on the ground and snoz in the air are referred to as "conventional undercarriage" regardless of skids or wheels simply as a term to generalise. I should use that term more often :S ....I was born in the wrong era. Too bad I missed the golden age!!!!!!!!

 

I love learning new stuff on here!

 

 

[Mac]

trycycle vs taildragger

 

Hi

 

I owned a Rans s7 and sold it to buy a jabiru. It goes faster!, but you know, I should have kept the Rans. It cruised along at about 85k, could carry heaps of weight at full fuel and could land anywhere. Sometimes I think we are too quick to chase dream of every thing has to be bigger and faster.

 

I have an sp470 and am after a 230. Maybe I haven't learnt my lesson!

 

Cheers

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi Nev

 

If my old memory serves me correctly, it was actually Mr Piper who got into the tricycle stuff with his shortwing Pacer PA20/Tripacer PA22 series and it was the flying schools who saw this as a way of reducing costs by lowering the rate at which bingles occurred... taildragger/tailwheel aircraft do have a bad habit of testing pilot competency.

 

Interestingly, most of the tailwheel Pipers now flying here seem to be retroconverted PA22's because the owners are flying for fun and not for a basic licence.

 

For those that enjoy these things, the shortwing Pipers have hydraulic toe brakes whereas classics like the Luscomb and Auster have heel operated mechanisms connected to cables euphamistically called brakes. Most variants of both of the latter aircraft have 36' wingspans and are therefore definately not a "shortwing" design.

 

The factors that tend to make the TW types a bit more demanding on the ground include:

 

1. The wing is at a high angle of attack when the tail is on the ground and is more susceptible to cross-wind effects;

 

2. The P effect tends to caster the aeroplane in the direction of the airflow from the prop; and

 

3. Cross-winds act on the fuse and tail causing the aircraft to try to point into wind.

 

Add to that your limited visibility until the tail comes up and you have a bundle of excitement.

 

My Auster has the bigger tail conversion so it has a max x-wind component of 9 knots. The normal tail variant and Tigers are 7 knots. Bit different to the 15 knots + of most training trikes, eh? Flying one of the oldies is good for the soul and teaches you to use the whole of the (width of) the airstrip.

 

Once bitten with this bug it's terminal from there on in.

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

Interesting.

 

Well this has brought a fresh breath of reality without the usual accusation of eleteism. There would be a lot of good people out there who would not really know and would be looking for guidance. There was another thread questioning why the resurgence of interest in "cub" type aircraft. It may well not be everybodys cup of tea, but for those who see a real challenge, I am glad thay they are rising to it. It is not compulsory but nevertheless compelling. IF most of us just wanted a quiet life we would have been doing something totally different, rather than flying ..Nev

 

 

[Spin]

Spot on Nev, no matter how we try and dress it up, flying can never be considered the most sensible activity - but oh isn't it fun!

 

Thanks to the urging of some of the usual suspects on here, I've taken the plunge and am going to begin training for a taildragger rating in the New Year. My instructor was pretty encouraging but had an evil grin too, time will tell I guess.

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

HI SUE and Who cares?

 

Once in the air who cares about the wheels. If it IS important than they should drive a bl..dy car!!

 

I came from Piper Cups and Decathlon's and thought that anyone NOT flying a tailwheel is inferior. What a wank!

 

They both have their place and who cares anyway??

 

We all fly and that"s what matters

 

fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[riverduk]

I reckon go with what feels comfy, I'm learning to fly in a Tecnam @ present so tricycle is the go for me.

 

But hey Sue I have noted that in your hanger is a Karasport, there is one listed for sale in the current RAA mag and would I love to have a look, sweet looking little machine, my only prob is that it is in WA and I live in Vic, not the ideal weekend drive, but if I were to buy something like that, well the tail dragger endorsement has to be on the list if I'm going to fly it.

 

But really, at the end of the day, who cares where the wheels are or if it has a yoke or joystick, I'm not into flying for the taxiing, takeoffs and landings, I'm in it for the flying firstly, then the freedom it brings and also all the great people I am meeting.

 

Enjoy what you fly and how you fly it, :big_grin: cheers, Ross

 

 

[Methusala]

Sue, I think that tailweel is best. It tells you when the landing is over!

 

Welcome to THE aviation forum, regards, Don

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Taildraggers, For those who are beyond the training wheel, and who see landings as a lot more than just the end of a flight....................................................:thumb_up: :stirring pot:

 

 

[kaz3g]

What sort of approaches do you fly?

 

On the funny side, I am so used to flying taildraggers and doing full stall landings that on the odd occasion when I fly C172/C182 type, my instructor has said "we are going to fit a tail wheel to that Cessna David just for you....."

Apparently my 'hold off' technique prompted the comments.... I did consider it a complement.

 

David

One of the other interesting things about flying taildraggers is that many of us tend to do glide approaches when landing. This was the standard approach flown years ago (and is the only approach advisable in gliders :big_grin:) whereas today we are commonly taught to fly flat, powered approaches with everything calculated on a pattern of standard heights, revs, angles, etc.

 

Even though the Auster has flaps like barn doors, I routinely side slip to lose height on base and/or final, and usually only hang out one stage of flap on hot days as the Auster tends to float and float and...

 

I did a check with an instructor in a C172 M a while back and was accused of doing "space shuttle" approaches. Apparently she found a windscreen full of ground a tad disconcerting. I personally find the prospect of losing power on approach and not being within gliding distance a lot more worrying.

 

What sort of approaches do you fly and why?

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

Hi Sue,

 

sounds like you have some experience on a number of A/C of both configurations.

 

I think that the debate of which is better ie: Taildragger versus Nosewheel will never end.

 

As I said in earlier forums I used to fly the Piper cub and the Decathlon. Both totally different to land but neither of them hard at all. In fact I don't know what the fuss is all about. The only thing was the restricted visibility on the ground.

 

I think that maintaining the "myth" has a lot to do with it. The reality is so much easier.

 

There are a few designs out there that are a "pig" but that is bad design and thats why they are a handful. The rest of the taildraggers are no harder than anything with a nosewheel. Bill Grieve a good friend of mine who has flown both types and currently flys a Savvy says that there is no excuse for a plane not to have a nosewheel ever since the fist plane was was fitted with one. That might be a little extreme but I must agree that no new designs have or favor a tailwheel. ( stuntplanes excluded ).

 

A Taildragger will bite if abused but when operated correctly is fun and satisfying but so is the nosewheel !

 

happy flying

 

Walter

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

They are different a/c with different advantages. Many nose wheel a/c would suffer badly if they were taken into the strips that I use. I land in paddocks often, sometimes short ones. I would not be comfortable taking a tricycle u/c a/c into some of these strips. The Lightwing deals with all of this with no fuss at all. I guess that the advantage with a tricycle u/c is that they are easier or more forgiving of errors when landing.

 

 

[Methusala]

To David Isaacs.

 

You missed the point, Sir. The landing ain't over till its over. You know that in a tailwheel a/c not to relax until all forward momentum has ceased. Same with nosewheel but they don't give the same impression but can still bite.

 

Sorry for not making my point more clearly, Don.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Taildragger - restricted visability

 

I have trouble seeing out the windscreen in tailwheel aircraft - see below I guess he has earned the PIC seat - he spent more years building it than I did and he's more passionate about tailwheels - and (don't tell him) a better pilot than I am.

 

Sue

 

 

 

[Tracktop]

who cares where the wheels are or if it has a yoke or joystickEnjoy what you fly and how you fly it, :big_grin: cheers, Ross

a yoke or joystick, a CONTROL BAR or lines :big_grin:

 

 

[LEJ]

I have the opportunity in both Tail wheel and Nose wheel. I agree with John Birrell that if you start off with Tail wheel, it is an easy conversion to Nose wheel. However the reverse is a lot harder.

 

Turning a tail wheel aircraft is not as easy but with experience, it is not that hard, just a lot of pedal work and burst of power ever so often. Also with the tail wheel, depending on the aircraft, the visibility of what is in front of you is restricted.

 

Landing the tail wheel is also a lot of fun especially the 3 pointers', and you will slow down a lot faster than a nose wheel would.

 

I now fly nose wheel predominantly these days as I have not been able to find a tail wheel aircraft for hire in the Melbourne area. Anyone knows where I might be able to hire a tail wheel?

 

 

[facthunter]

Hire and Training- Tailwheels.

 

Difficult on both counts. This is why I feel they should get a little promotion, and people who are interested could do it. It will never be made compulsory. It wasn't so long ago that virtually ALL aircraft operated under AUF (6+ years ago?) , were tailwheel. With 2-seat trainers like Thruster, Drifter and Skyfox disappearing from the training environment,in the last 4-5 years, (Can't insure 2-strokes,) there is precious little opportunuty to get the training , in RAAus. The Zlin Savage Cub is operated by Bruce Vickers at Lethbridge giving what is a RARE opportunity., for BOTH hire and training. There is probably more availability in GA which is a bit ironic, considering the history of these two arms of aviation. Prior to the 2-seaters becoming available proper training could not exist and the first was the thruster (about 1986-7?) That is when I flew one and I think it was one of the earliest 2-seaters around... Nev.

 

 

[Guest check-in]

When I wanted to convert my CASA licences to RAA I found it quite difficult (and expensive) to locate a tailwheel machine to fly off the five hours. The machine I eventually found was actually a G.A. type that had been stripped of electrics etc to make the weight category. Even though I had heaps of prior tailwheel time and could have taken the soft option of doing the time in a nosewheel aircraft, I did not want to do that because I felt the need to sharpen up a bit and thus get some value from the 5 hours. RAA would probably have given me the TW endorsement anyway, as it was already on my CASA licence.

 

I note that the Skyfox eventually became a nosewheel aeroplane and am disappointed to see more and more nosewheel variants of the Vans RV, Sonex etc being built. Probably because tailwheel aeroplanes have earned a bad reputation which I believe is unjustified. Almost every pilot before the 1960s learned to fly in taildraggers. Back then average time to first solo was probably LESS than it is today - 8-10 hours being typical.

 

If we are not careful, tailwheel flying will go the way of celestial navigation and become extinct. A lost art.

 

If I were ever to get into the business, it would be to teach in tailwheels if it was at all viable to do so. Can someone who is in the RA training scene comment on the damage ratio suffered with tailwheel aircraft versus nosewheel in a pure training environment?

 

 

[djpacro]

It'd be interesting to know whether it is easier for a new student to learn to fly in a Jabiru compared to a Savage Cub, for example.

 

My guess is that time to solo a Cub would be no more than a typical tricycle gear trainer.

 

 

[Mazda]

Check-in I think the shorter time to solo in the past was as much to do with a different syllabus as anything else. I know of a school teaching ab initio in Citabrias, their average time to solo is about the same as if they teach in nosewheel aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

Comparison.

 

djpacro, the figures may be out there IF you could use the drifter or thruster verses say LSA 55 jabiru and they were both out there at the same time. I don't think there would be much difference in the time to solo, in the average student. Whilst I don't think that these aircraft are extremely difficult to fly, they are challenging in their own way. There are aircraft that are much more forgiving. The Gazelle for instance..

 

If you were running a flying school say 12 years ago, the easiest choice would be to utilize Gazelle's. They are extremely forgiving. The tailwheel version, the skyfox is essentially the same in the air but a different kettle of fish on the ground. A lot of them came to grief in the training situation. There are reasons for that but directional control difficulties are the foremost.

 

You could say why bother with tailwheel aircraft at all? That is one option. It is not realistic though, if we want to cover the whole gamut. ie Cropduster, aerobatic, rough and short field ops and just the people who prefer the simplicity of not having that front wheel to worry about.

 

The other approach is to get on top of the technique and train properly as we used to, in appropriate aircraft. That is where we are at now. We are starting to get the right planes, unfortunately most of them are over 544 Kg at the moment

 

 

[pudestcon]

Not much good to you guys "in the east" but Avon Valley Ultralights based in Northam Western Australia use a Thruster T500 for training, which I fly most weekends until my T500 is fully restored/reconditioned. I had Steve Vette (member here as 'AVU') instruct me for my endorsement on Thrusters and have flown 6.5 hours in the training aircraft since. I need my fix of the high drag, low inertia, rag and tube taildragger on a regular basis to continue my experience and to stay current. Its a great little aircraft to fly but a bit slow - tried to fly to Goomalling (30mins by road) the other day and gave up after 35 minutes (roaring headwind at 3500') but still had some fun.

 

Pud

 

 

[Yenn]

I lke the tailwheel and it can do something the tricycle planes can't do. Run it onto the very end of the runway, forward stick and full rudder a bit of throttle and spin it on one wheel to line up. For real fun though try landing downhill on slick bitumen, with or without a cross wind.

 

 

[kaz3g]

...I do think you are oversimplifying the difference in handling characteristics though. Apart from some "pig designs" as you put it, all taildraggers are handled quite differently to tricycle types and there is definitely a different set of skills required as you well know and they definitely can bite you in a way that a tricycle cannot....<snip>I think what many of us taildragger enthusiasts enjoy is the challenge of getting it right.... And yes when you are current they are easy to land, but with a taildragger "currency" is a lot more relevant.

Hi David and everyone on topic

 

There are different skills involved but every pilot who survives the next flight is either a person of skill or very lucky, no matter whether they fly TW or tricycle.

 

TW aircraft were the norm until the 1950's and most of those early aircraft were designed to use all over air fields --- you simply took off into wind wherever it came from. Flying those same machines from directional strips today is far more demanding. I sometimes think it takes a certain psychological defect to go about life as aviators with just a tiny wheel (or skid for the purists) out back for support.

 

Later aircraft, such as the C170 - C185 series, Belanca's and even shortwing Pipers have far better cross-wind components and hence directional stability than most of the earlier ones (Luscomb is an interesting exception). For example, Tigers and Austers (without the tail mod) had a max X-wind of 7 knots. That's not an awful lot!

 

And, forgetting the oldies, quite a number of modern aircraft do have TW's. The RV series is a great example in the VH category while a heap of RAAus machines have them including Sonerai, Rand KR2, Lightwing and Sapphire to name just a few. Even the Jab comes in a rather swish looking version with the tail on the ground.

 

I landed at Mangalore for fuel today because the bowser at Locksely was closed. Apart from the $9.50 landing fee now in place, I was also distressed by my inability to land just once in the cross-wind which I guestimated was around 9 knots. I actually made my 90 currency requirements all in one go:sad:

 

I hadn't flown since 5 December and it showed!

 

My next landing at Coldstream was ever so much better and I had just one little skip which was easily dealt with using a small burst of throttle.

 

Incidentally, because I like to watch others arriving and look for the mains to contact before anything else or perhaps a 3-pointer with the tail down, I haven't been able to not notice the number of tricycle gear pilots who wheel barrow on landing and/or takeoff. These pilots are not stalling their aircraft on which is how most all of us are supposed to arrive and/or are trying to hold their aircraft on when it wants to fly.

 

The former is definitely a recipe for disaster and the latter decidedly untidy.

 

kaz