Conventional v tricycle gear

Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

wrote in message
...
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

Less weight and drag would be another plus.

In article , Maxwell says...


wrote in message
...
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

Less weight and drag would be another plus.

You're always in drag, Maxine.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
@newsfe24.lga:


wrote in message
...
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

Less weight and drag would be another plus.





A bit like your pointy head.


Bertie

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
@newsfe24.lga:


wrote in message
...
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

Less weight and drag would be another plus.





A bit like your pointy head.

there are tail draggers still in operation?
i thought everyone put the third wheel in front nowadays

if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
why not just lengthen the front strut

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
@newsfe24.lga:


wrote in message
news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.c
om...
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and
their pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with
prop clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better
in that same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level
of experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record
when compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel under the engine?

Less weight and drag would be another plus.





A bit like your pointy head.

there are tail draggers still in operation?
i thought everyone put the third wheel in front nowadays


If anythng they're making a bit of a comeback..


if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
why not just lengthen the front strut

Now that would be messy! You'd just have a whellbarrow, then.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

If anythng they're making a bit of a comeback..


No they are not, they never disappeared.



Now that would be messy! You'd just have a whellbarrow, then.


No your wouldn't, you would have a longer front strut.


Bertie


Barfie

On Jul 7, 11:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
why not just lengthen the front strut

Now that would be messy! You'd just have a wheelbarrow, then.

Trikes are full of compromises. Lengthen the nose strut (or
inflate it more)to get the prop up away from the rocks and guys who
land too fast will wheelbarrow it. So the manufacturer and the
mechanic both have to take poor airmanship into account.
Give me a taildragger. It won't forgive poor airmanship, so
that a pilot either smartens up or buys a boat.

Dan

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
@newsfe24.lga:


A bit like your pointy head.


Bertie

No dumb ****, it's about weight and drag, more like your fat ass.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:OOxck.27073$i55.21912
@newsfe22.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
@newsfe24.lga:


A bit like your pointy head.


Bertie

No dumb ****, it's about weight and drag, more like your fat ass.


Awww, it's the "battleship" method of flaming again.

You'd have to get something right for it to sting, fjukktard...


And even then, I'd have to give a **** what you thought...

Bertie