Conventional v tricycle gear

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"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

Your ass reminds you of a battleship?

Ah, but you do.

Nice thing about lying, you can always have it your way!

On Jul 7, 9:05*am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
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.

The lesson is, on landing the yoke belongs full aft until it can't
keep the nose wheel off, and on takeoff ditto liftoff, then fly in
ground effect, bring up the flaps a bit, and climb when the airspeed
says it's prudent.

Then clean off the underside of the wings and cowling when you get
home. Got it!

Thanks all. For now I'll stick to hard surfaces as much as I can.

On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
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 tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

Dan

On Jul 7, 10:05*am, wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:

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 tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

* * * * * * * Dan

The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.

I do think one can lift off in the same distance no matter if the
extra wheel is in the front or the back, but the extra weight could be
a minor factor.

Thanks for the insights, Max and Dan

Hadn't thought about the extra weight

wrote in news:ec2f5d9e-e9d6-4885-aaf1-41035bc59765
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 7, 10:05*am, wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:

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 tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes.
The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more
weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's
mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce
the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

* * * * * * * Dan

The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.


Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a tsaildragger,
but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low speeds. Unless the
field is very soft the difference isnt going to be that great, but given
two pretty much identical airplanes with different gear configurations,
like a 182 vs 180, the taildragger will outperform the trike and offer
greater utility in a wider variety of field conditions.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a tsaildragger,
but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low speeds.

Bertie

You're really stuck on that "alpha" word aren't you. You seem to use it all
the time, lately.

I think you have just been spending a little too much time with your nose up
the lead dogs ass.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a
tsaildragger, but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low
speeds.

Bertie

You're really stuck on that "alpha" word aren't you. You seem to use
it all the time, lately.


Used it for many years, fjukkwit.

I think you have just been spending a little too much time with your
nose up the lead dogs ass.


Yeh, right, nominee boi.


Voting is going well, though you're behind at the moment. Mind you,this is
what you're competing with...


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Jamie_Baillie


He's good, but you can do it Maxie! Go on boi!



Bertie

wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 10:05 am, wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:

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 tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

Dan

The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.

I do think one can lift off in the same distance no matter if the
extra wheel is in the front or the back, but the extra weight could be
a minor factor.

Thanks for the insights, Max and Dan

Hadn't thought about the extra weight

If you've ever gotten a nosewheel plane stuck in the mud, you can truly
appreciate a taildragger. You just simply can't unload the nosewheel
completely. If your nosewheel hits a big enough pothole you're either going
to snap it off or the plane is going over. As far as short field landing
go, I don't believe there's much difference between the two. Back when I
had a '56 172 I could land it just as short as a buddy's 170. A fixed gear
nosewheel plane will be slightly slower with all other things being equal
due to the tailwheel's cleaner configuration. A lot of guys prefer
taildraggers because many of them have a stick which makes them feel like a
real pilot. The tradeoffs to the tailwheel are reduced taxiing visibility
(some more than others), the susceptibility to the dreaded ground loop and
higher insurance costs as a result, especially to low time pilots.

wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
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 tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

Dan

And most tail draggers are lighter and have less drag yielding slightly
better payload and performance in situations which may demand both.

Matt

wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

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?

They do tend to be beter in rough fields for a few reasons. Noseheels end
to dig in a bit, especially if they're small, wheras the even smaller
tailwheel tends to ride up out of a soft runway. As you say, there's
generally better prop clearance as well. Tailwheel airplanes have generally
got more ample control surfaces and a proficient pilot can get better
crosswind performance because of that. The mains are usually the same size
as a comparable nosewheel airplane, though airplanes set up for the bush
and Cubs have low pressure tires, so that's not a factor.
The airplanes attitude at low speed is probably the biggest factor. Almost
as soon as you're moving with a taildragger you have a good bit of lift
from the wings and that lightens the load on the mains sooner than you
could do so with a trike.
On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking that
slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had as you do
with a trike.
Bottom line is there's not a whole lot of difference in performance or that
many advantages one way or another. Th eaccident record is worse, but
that's almost always down to pilot proficiency. I'm more comfortable in
taildragger when I'm current. I suppose the best comparison is that between
a bike and a car. Harder to keep a bike upright, but you have more control
over it when you do get "it"

Bertie