On Topic

[birdog[_2_]]

Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
on topic comments.

Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options. The
Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ. The
principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down solid,
you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
and it will swap ends, with devistating results.

In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed pilots
trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about 3-6
hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally took
about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing was
the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.

Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be
worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

[Mark]

On May 10, 3:06*pm, "birdog" > wrote:
> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
> on topic comments.
>
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options. The
> Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ. The
> principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down solid,
> you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
> and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed pilots
> trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
> dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about 3-6
> hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally took
> about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
> pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing was
> the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.
>
> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be
> worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

The topic certainly isn't outdated, expecially for the
Vans RV enthusiasts. My first few flights were in a
J-3 tail dragger, and now I'd like to go back to the tail wheel
in an RV-6, or even a MySky MS-1 painted in nostaglic
retro to resemble a spitfire.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On May 10, 3:06*pm, "birdog" > wrote:
> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
> on topic comments.
>
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options. The
> Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ. The
> principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down solid,
> you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
> and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed pilots
> trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
> dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about 3-6
> hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally took
> about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
> pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing was
> the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.
>
> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be
> worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

I saw one like this yesterday parked out back,
except it was blue and white, real sharp.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Van's-RV-6/1577100/M/

---
Mark

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be
> worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

Tail draggers are rare because of the extra skill they require. Starting
training in them would serve little purpose, since the average pilot would
never again have to use those tail-dragger skills. Over time, some things are
best relegated to history and to niche markets.

I think the trend in the future will be towards less and less time spent
training in aircraft different from those that a person intends to pilot.
Airline pilots will train entirely in simulation, and their first flight in a
real aircraft will be their first revenue flight. This is already possible for
some types of training and certification, but not (yet) for ab initio
training.

[Mark]

On May 10, 3:06*pm, "birdog" > wrote:
> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here?

Sorry birdog. I'm putting a lock on my computer so
these people that come over to my house can't get
online and come to my groups.

From now on it will just be me using this
computer.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> birdog writes:
>
>> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be
>> worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?
>
> Tail draggers are rare because of the extra skill they require.

Tail draggers were starting to become somewhat rare because most makers
stopped making them.

This has turned around, e.g, various versions of the Cub and the Champ
are back in production.

The "extra skill they require" is a few hours of training.

For certain types of flying, tail draggers are the best choice.

> I think the trend in the future will be towards less and less time spent
> training in aircraft different from those that a person intends to pilot.

Nope, most pilots will continue to train in something inexpensive and
transition to something else later.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in F-22's and
scrap all the trainers?

> Airline pilots will train entirely in simulation, and their first flight in a
> real aircraft will be their first revenue flight.

This is never going to happen. Keep deluding yourself.

> This is already possible for
> some types of training and certification, but not (yet) for ab initio
> training.

Yeah, for a type rating for a similar airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Tail draggers were starting to become somewhat rare because most makers
> stopped making them.

Why did they stop making them?

> Nope, most pilots will continue to train in something inexpensive and
> transition to something else later.

I was thinking mainly of people training for piloting as a career, where
financial limitations are less of a factor.

> Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in F-22's and
> scrap all the trainers?

For transport pilots, I don't think they will use F-22s at all.

> This is never going to happen. Keep deluding yourself.

Wait and see. It will happen first in the Third World.

> Yeah, for a type rating for a similar airplane.

That wasn't possible before, and now it is. More changes along these lines
will occur in the future.

[Jim Logajan]

"birdog" > wrote:
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except
> for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to
> tarmac.

Perhaps one other possible redeeming value might be in emergency landings
on unknown surfaces. I've read accident reports where there were fatalities
when the nose wheel of a plane dug in and the plane flipped.

I'm also curious to know if anyone can give first-hand information on
whether landing on skis or floats is more like landing on conventional gear
or tricycle gear? For several reasons I've assumed that it is more like
landing on tricycle gear, but maybe that is incorrect.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Tail draggers were starting to become somewhat rare because most makers
>> stopped making them.
>
> Why did they stop making them?

Why did they stop making cars with tail fins?

Nose gear airplanes became the fashion for GA, with a small number of
tail dragger enthusiasts.

Tail draggers are making a resurgance because of the nostalgia, they tend
to be cheaper to make (and thus sell), and there are situations where a
nose wheel is not really desirable to have.

>> Nope, most pilots will continue to train in something inexpensive and
>> transition to something else later.
>
> I was thinking mainly of people training for piloting as a career, where
> financial limitations are less of a factor.

Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

>> Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in F-22's and
>> scrap all the trainers?
>
> For transport pilots, I don't think they will use F-22s at all.

Non sequitur.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

>> This is never going to happen. Keep deluding yourself.
>
> Wait and see. It will happen first in the Third World.

Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
primary trainers.

>> Yeah, for a type rating for a similar airplane.
>
> That wasn't possible before, and now it is. More changes along these lines
> will occur in the future.

Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
using simulation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get
> some on topic comments.
>
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options.
> The Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old
> Champ. The principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels
> are down solid, you are done except steering it down the runway. In a
> tail dragger, relax and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
> pilots trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it
> up with a dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most
> took about 3-6 hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to
> tri-gear normally took about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of
> dual for the beginning pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to
> master before soloing was the rudder work required to land a tail
> dragger.
>
> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
> be worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

Well, I found it pretty easy to start out in a taildragger - it just seems
to be a big problem from those transitioning from a nosewheel. I suspect
that it's the transition pilots that drive the insurance claims up which
drives the insurance companies to discourage using them for training.

Self fulfilling prophecy, eh?

Personally, I found the flexibility of a taildragger convenient even when
98% of the time I landed on pavement. You can't do wheel landings with
tricycle gear.
--
Geoff (making a trip to look at a taildragger tomorrow) Thorpe
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Why did they stop making cars with tail fins?

Because there was no longer a market for them.

> Nose gear airplanes became the fashion for GA, with a small number of
> tail dragger enthusiasts.

It has been a very durable "fashion," rather like disc brakes and fuel
injection.

> Tail draggers are making a resurgance because of the nostalgia, they tend
> to be cheaper to make (and thus sell), and there are situations where a
> nose wheel is not really desirable to have.

So it's a niche market. Meaning that, unless a prospective pilot specifically
wants to fly tail draggers for some reason, there's no reason to include them
in a training program.

> Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a
payback than on something that won't.

> Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
> than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is
always a key factor.

> Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
> and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
> primary trainers.

Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves.
And regulations differ and can change. For example, the ICAO requires Level 4
proficiency in English, but it allows individual member states to measure that
proficiency in their own way, which means that many people who still can't
speak English well enough to be safe manage to join air crews.

> Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

Simulators substantially predate computers.

> And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
> requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
> using simulation.

Experience is always an asset. But you don't necessarily need a real airplane
to get experience. And in a real airplane, you're more likely to get one
year's experience ten times than ten years of varied experience, because
real-world flying tends to be fairly monotonous if it's safe, whereas
simulation can provide experience in all sorts of situations that would be too
dangerous to experience in real life (which is one of the main reasons for
using it).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>

>
>> Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.
>
> It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a
> payback than on something that won't.

And it is quite possible you are insane.

>> Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
>> than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?
>
> I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is
> always a key factor.

"I don't know how" being the operative part.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

>> Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
>> and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
>> primary trainers.
>
> Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves.

But not cheaper than much of anything less than an airliner, which is the
point.

>> Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.
>
> Simulators substantially predate computers.

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

>> And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
>> requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
>> using simulation.
>
> Experience is always an asset.

Good to see that you are not totally insane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[birdog[_2_]]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
On May 10, 3:06 pm, "birdog" > wrote:
> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
> on topic comments.
>
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options.
> The
> Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ.
> The
> principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down
> solid,
> you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
> and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
> pilots
> trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
> dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about
> 3-6
> hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally
> took
> about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
> pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing
> was
> the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.
>
> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
> be
> worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

I saw one like this yesterday parked out back,
except it was blue and white, real sharp.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Van's-RV-6/1577100/M/

---
Mark

Beautiful little plane. Looks a lot like a 300. It is stressed for
aerobatics? Almost looks like it's doing aeros, setting on the runway!

[Scien]

Have no experience, but kind of curious too.

I was under the impression that things that come into play for
conventional gear is gyroscopic motion on the propeller when the tail
comes up or drops on take off and landing, as well as the fact that
since the cg is behind the main gear there is a tenancy for the
airplane to want to ground loop if you don't keep that cg behind them
fairly well with control inputs.

I would think that both floats and skis would not have that same
issue, both due to not having as much pitch up and down on take off
and landings, and due to their cg being over the floats or skis.

But then again I have no idea what I am talking about. Just guessing
and would like someone who actually knows what they are talking about
to chime in heh.

Mike

On May 10, 3:56*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "birdog" > wrote:
> > Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except
> > for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to
> > tarmac.
>
> Perhaps one other possible redeeming value might be in emergency landings
> on unknown surfaces. I've read accident reports where there were fatalities
> when the nose wheel of a plane dug in and the plane flipped.
>
> I'm also curious to know if anyone can give first-hand information on
> whether landing on skis or floats is more like landing on conventional gear
> or tricycle gear? For several reasons I've assumed that it is more like
> landing on tricycle gear, but maybe that is incorrect.

[Peter Dohm]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
> on topic comments.
>
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options.
> The Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old
> Champ. The principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels
> are down solid, you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail
> dragger, relax and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
> pilots trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up
> with a dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took
> about 3-6 hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear
> normally took about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for
> the beginning pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master
> before soloing was the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.
>
> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
> be worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?
>
Yes, it is probably well worth the effort.

With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer tri-gear
designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has certainly
reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel; but it has done so at the
cost of controllability in the event of a partial brake failure and also
created some brake wear and heating problems taxiing in crosswinds.

Against that back drop, even though I expect to have a lot of trouble
learning to love the high nose position, a steerable tail wheel has a very
strong argument. I would expect the frequency of ground loops due to pilot
error in taildraggers to be no greater than the frequency due to braking
problems in tri-gears; and the improvement in propeller clearance, when
strarting from rest on the occasional loose surfaces, should offest the
annoyance s-turns due to reduced visibility. All in all, the comparison
could be a wash; but is certainly worthy of more discussion than it has
received.

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Not simulators that actually simulate reality.
>
> Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers.

The operative word being "targeted".

The first flight simulators that were anything near realistic had analog
computers running them, but the view was nowhere near realistic.

It wasn't until digital computers that it became possible to have a
realistic view.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...

> Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do even
more...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jim Logajan]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>
> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
> even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> writes:

> I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
> I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.
>
> They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
> motion is just not right.

Inner ears don't detect constant motion, they detect acceleration, and they
are very easy to fool.

> Plus they can't come close to simulating the
> things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

You can mess up your inner ear just by spinning in a chair. It doesn't take
much.

> Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a Bonanza or Airbus?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> writes:
>
>> I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
>> I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.
>>
>> They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
>> motion is just not right.
>
> Inner ears don't detect constant motion, they detect acceleration, and they
> are very easy to fool.

True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

>> Plus they can't come close to simulating the
>> things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.
>
> You can mess up your inner ear just by spinning in a chair. It doesn't take
> much.

Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

>> Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?
>
> Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a Bonanza or Airbus?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a real airplane?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>>
>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
>> even more...
>
> Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
> conventional gear.
>
> Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
> between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
> either
> of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

On the contrary, it's extremely important for simulators. Full-motion
simulators are designed specifically to profit maximally from the various
defects of human motion perception. The same defects that result in spatial
disorientation are put to work in simulators to create an extremely persuasive
illusion of real, continuous movement.

The simulator actually uses only acceleration cues and washout to persuade the
human brain that the sim cockpit is actually going somewhere. It works
extremely well.

> Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

If you can be messed up by turning in a chair with your eyes closed, you can
definitely be persuaded of just about anything with a properly-programmed
motion base reinforced by effective visuals and sound effects.

> Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a real airplane?

Sure, but only in aerobatic and fighter aircraft, which are a very tiny
percentage of all the aircraft in service. Most aircraft will disintegrate
long before GLOC occurs.

[Jim Logajan]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>>>
>>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
>>> even more...
>>
>> Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
>> conventional gear.
>>
>> Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
>> between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
>> either
>> of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?
>
> Two or three?

About 1 percent. At most 1.5%. The "A" models have the nosewheel, so here
are the performance figures Van's claims (I've read others say that he is
pretty honest about the performance numbers he lists):

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9per.htm

I think the RV-9 compared with the RV-9A at 118 HP, 55% power, and gross
weight shows the largest percent difference at about 1.4% faster for
conventional gear. Oddly, all the aircraft show about 2 mph difference,
regardless of power setting.

> Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
> fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?
>
> Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
> misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.
>
> On the contrary, it's extremely important for simulators. Full-motion
> simulators are designed specifically to profit maximally from the various
> defects of human motion perception. The same defects that result in spatial
> disorientation are put to work in simulators to create an extremely persuasive
> illusion of real, continuous movement.
>
> The simulator actually uses only acceleration cues and washout to persuade the
> human brain that the sim cockpit is actually going somewhere. It works
> extremely well.
>
>> Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.
>
> If you can be messed up by turning in a chair with your eyes closed, you can
> definitely be persuaded of just about anything with a properly-programmed
> motion base reinforced by effective visuals and sound effects.

Yet the most advanced and costly simulators still do not 100% simulate the
reality of flight, something that in your delusions you will never understand.

Granted 100% simulation is not required for all situations such as
teaching procedures, but I highly doubt you will ever find anyone that has
actually flown an aircraft that will agree that all flight training can
be done in a simulator like you seem to believe.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On May 12, 10:22*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
> >>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
> >>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. *That has
> >>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>
> >>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
> >>> even more...
>
> >> Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
> >> conventional gear.
>
> >> Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
> >> between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
> >> either
> >> of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?
>
> > Two or three?
>
> About 1 percent. At most 1.5%. The "A" models have the nosewheel, so here
> are the performance figures Van's claims (I've read others say that he is
> pretty honest about the performance numbers he lists):
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htmhttp://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htmhttp://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8per.htmhttp://www..vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9per.htm
>
> I think the RV-9 compared with the RV-9A at 118 HP, 55% power, and gross
> weight shows the largest percent difference at about 1.4% faster for
> conventional gear. Oddly, all the aircraft show about 2 mph difference,
> regardless of power setting.
>
> > Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
> > fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?
>
> > Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
> > misconceptions just for the sake of reality.
>
> No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
> perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

Well, at least there's always several RV-6s on the market at all
times, some very reasonable. Here's one from an estate sale.
They're only asking 45. You could offer 39 and take it from there.

http://barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=345031

---
Mark

[Mark]

On May 11, 11:05*am, "birdog" > wrote:
> "Mark" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On May 10, 3:06 pm, "birdog" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> > this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> > aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
> > on topic comments.
>
> > Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> > bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> > still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options..
> > The
> > Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ..
> > The
> > principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down
> > solid,
> > you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
> > and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> > In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
> > pilots
> > trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
> > dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about
> > 3-6
> > hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally
> > took
> > about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
> > pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing
> > was
> > the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.
>
> > Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
> > be
> > worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?
>
> I saw one like this yesterday parked out back,
> except it was blue and white, real sharp.
>
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/Van's-RV-6/1577100/M/
>
> ---
> Mark
>
> Beautiful little plane. Looks a lot like a 300. It is stressed for
> aerobatics?

I really can't say, but apparently the RV-8 is according to
this fellow:

http://www.tailwheel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=199

They were having a similiar conversation on this topic.

---
Mark

[Brian Whatcott]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Not simulators that actually simulate reality.
>
> I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
> I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.
>
> They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the
> resulting motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to
> simulating the things that really mess up your inner ears during
> sustained turns.
>
> Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?
>

The "insider" view is that visuals are the dominant cue, and
since the time of TV cameras on gantries over a landscape board, visuals
have steadily improved. Sim visuals are not at the Atavar level of
visual realism yet - but that took lots of post-processing.

6DOF motions are all well and good, but NASA aside, they provide only
onset motion cues.
As to multi million dollar sims - the going rate is getting on for $20
million presently for a full house commercial jet.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>
> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
> even more...
>

Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
flight to free caster.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

wrote:
>...but I highly doubt you will ever find anyone that has
> actually flown an aircraft that will agree that all flight training can
> be done in a simulator like you seem to believe.
>

The FAA grants approval to some simulators used to lift CPL-IRs to their
first passenger-carrying duties as ATPLs for passenger jets - that's the
economic reality.

Brian W

[[email protected]]

brian whatcott > wrote:
> wrote:
>>...but I highly doubt you will ever find anyone that has
>> actually flown an aircraft that will agree that all flight training can
>> be done in a simulator like you seem to believe.
>>
>
> The FAA grants approval to some simulators used to lift CPL-IRs to their
> first passenger-carrying duties as ATPLs for passenger jets - that's the
> economic reality.
>
> Brian W

Yeah, but what part of "all flight training" did you miss?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>
> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do even
> more...
>
> --
Not quite as much as I had personally supposed, but still a usefull amount.

All the same, I'm learning to love the tailwheels.

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>>
>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
>> even more...
>
> Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
> conventional gear.
>
> Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
> between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
> either
> of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Well, it's more than a year too late for me to avoid cheating in that way.
However, the advertised difference is around 2 knots; which is about 1/2 or
what I would have guessed before I looked.

But, that reduced difference in cruise performand was gained at the expense
of nowe wheel steering. So what we are really comparing on the RV-6, 7, 8,
and 9 models is a fully faired and free castering nosewheel versus an
unfaired and fully steerable tailwheel. So the ground handling advantage
does not automatically go to the nosewheel version.

On a more apples for apples comparison, when the lowly and "draggy" Cessna
150 and 152 are converted from a steerable oleo strut type nosewheel to a
steerable tailwheel, they are reputed to gain at least 8 knots.

Those are the reasons that I find myself willing to advocate for the
tailwheel.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>>
>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
>> even more...
>>
>
> Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
> flight to free caster.
>
> Brian W

Not the ones that I flew. On the 150 and 152 models with which I was
familiar, the scissor link engaged a cam on the oleo casing when the nose
strut was fully extended--which forced the nosewheel into its straight ahead
position. Since the nosewheel steering force was applied through a pair of
springs, the rudder operated normally with only a little more pressure; but,
due to the limited nosewheel steering force which was available, tight turns
on the ramp did require assistance from the brakes.

Peter

[Jon Woellhaf]

Why can't the tailwheel be faired? Maybe with something flexible, like
silicone rubber.

[Mark]

On May 13, 3:34*pm, "Jon Woellhaf" > wrote:
> Why can't the tailwheel be faired? Maybe with something flexible, like
> silicone rubber.

Yes, that or just pay the $43.60.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1267401618-390-687&browse=misc&product=twf

---
Mark

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
<...>
> No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
> perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

LOL....

Thanks. I needed that.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Brian Whatcott]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "brian whatcott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
>>> even more...
>>>
>> Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
>> flight to free caster.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> Not the ones that I flew. On the 150 and 152 models with which I was
> familiar, the scissor link engaged a cam on the oleo casing when the nose
> strut was fully extended--which forced the nosewheel into its straight ahead
> position. Since the nosewheel steering force was applied through a pair of
> springs, the rudder operated normally with only a little more pressure; but,
> due to the limited nosewheel steering force which was available, tight turns
> on the ramp did require assistance from the brakes.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
This is a way more accurate description of the mechanism by which C-150s
have nosewheels that point ahead in flight. I do agree! Does
"Free-castoring" constitute something more effective than this for
flight drag reduction? :-)

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> Why can't the tailwheel be faired? Maybe with something flexible, like
> silicone rubber.
>
>
Some vintage tailwheels WERE faired or retracted.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>... when the lowly and "draggy" Cessna
> 150 and 152 are converted from a steerable oleo strut type nosewheel to a
> steerable tailwheel, they are reputed to gain at least 8 knots.
.....
> Peter
>
Hmmm...is this a comparison of a straight tail, no rear window, tail
wheel C150 and a nose wheel C-150, or are there are a few other little
details on a late model conversion, like wind LE cuffs, turbulators
etc., etc.
8 kts difference sound a little high to me, but I am willing to be
persuaded! :-)

Brian W

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> But, that reduced difference in cruise performand was gained at the expense
> of nowe wheel steering. So what we are really comparing on the RV-6, 7, 8,
> and 9 models is a fully faired and free castering nosewheel versus an
> unfaired and fully steerable tailwheel. So the ground handling advantage
> does not automatically go to the nosewheel version.

Nosewheel RV-6A has a higher rate of pilot loss of control than the
taildragger RV-6.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> On a more apples for apples comparison, when the lowly and "draggy"
> Cessna 150 and 152 are converted from a steerable oleo strut type
> nosewheel to a steerable tailwheel, they are reputed to gain at least
> 8 knots.

I can believe that - and for anything with tires large enough for bush
flying I can see nosewheel reducing the performance much more than the RV
series, which do have more svelt nose gear and struts.

Also, I know that some other experimentals (like Kitfox) can be built in
either nosewheel or conventional gear, but I haven't searched for any
performance comparisons between two such planes that differ only in gear.
Besides, builders tend to make other changes in their homebuilts that
muddle direct comparisions.

> Those are the reasons that I find myself willing to advocate for the
> tailwheel.

So far I've only flown and landed an aircraft with one tire (glider) but
when loaded the CG moves forward of the tire, but with no one on board the
SGS 2-33 settles back on its tail, indicating the CG moves aft of the tire.

(Okay okay - technically the 2-33 has 4 wheels! Two small rollers near the
wingtips and a small one on the tail, plus the main tire. And there is a
skid forward of the main tire.)

[Peter Dohm]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "brian whatcott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
>>>>> tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
>>>>> certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;
>>>> Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
>>>> even more...
>>>>
>>> Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
>>> flight to free caster.
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>> Not the ones that I flew. On the 150 and 152 models with which I was
>> familiar, the scissor link engaged a cam on the oleo casing when the nose
>> strut was fully extended--which forced the nosewheel into its straight
>> ahead position. Since the nosewheel steering force was applied through a
>> pair of springs, the rudder operated normally with only a little more
>> pressure; but, due to the limited nosewheel steering force which was
>> available, tight turns on the ramp did require assistance from the
>> brakes.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
> This is a way more accurate description of the mechanism by which C-150s
> have nosewheels that point ahead in flight. I do agree! Does
> "Free-castoring" constitute something more effective than this for flight
> drag reduction? :-)
>
> Brian W

Only in so much as the mechanism is smaller and much easier to fully enclose
in a fairing that allows both vertical and yawing movement of the nosewheel.
There was an STC'd speed modification offered for the Cessna 182, around 25
years ago, which included a telescoping fairing for the front oleo and
steering mechanism. As far as I can recall, the modicication was extremely
successfull in reducing drag; but it was expensive. In addition, there were
possible safety concerns--in that it placed considerable aerodynamic side
area farther forward (which would have increased the risk of an
unrecoverable spin) and also may have made a preflight inspection of the
steering mechanism much more dificult.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>... when the lowly and "draggy" Cessna 150 and 152 are converted from a
>>steerable oleo strut type nosewheel to a steerable tailwheel, they are
>>reputed to gain at least 8 knots.
> ....
>> Peter
> >
> Hmmm...is this a comparison of a straight tail, no rear window, tail wheel
> C150 and a nose wheel C-150, or are there are a few other little details
> on a late model conversion, like wind LE cuffs, turbulators etc., etc.
> 8 kts difference sound a little high to me, but I am willing to be
> persuaded! :-)
>
> Brian W
>
No, it relates to my best recollection (that is possibly less than complete)
of the before and after performance for a Teas Taildragger conversion--which
removed the complete nosewheel assembly, added a steerable tailwheel, and
relocated the original main gear assembly to position forward of the wing
strut attachments.

That was reputed to drastically improve the cruise performance and provide
an accessible means for tailwheel training--during a time when tailwheel
trainers were in reportedly short supply. To the best of my recollection,
there was some critisism of the conversion in the case of the C152 and of
the L amd M models of the C150 because of the softer and slightly lower and
wider main gear--which alledgedly made it possible to compress the main gear
enough to strike the propeller during a hard landing.

Peter

[Mark]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:06:38 -0400, birdog wrote:

> Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
> this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
> aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
> on topic comments.
>
> Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
> bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
> still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options. The
> Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ. The
> principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down solid,
> you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
> and it will swap ends, with devistating results.
>
> In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed pilots
> trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
> dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about 3-6
> hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally took
> about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
> pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing was
> the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.
>
> Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be
> worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?


The topic certainly isn't outdated, expecially for the
Vans RV enthusiasts. My first few flights were in a
J-3 tail dragger, and now I'd like to go back to the tail wheel
in an RV-6, or even a MySky MS-1 painted in nostaglic
retro to resemble a spitfire. Something super cool so I will look good
and get me some pussy in.

Ever.

<sigh>

Mark The Geostation