Conventional v tricycle gear

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.

On Jul 7, 11:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
taildragger, depending. The trike, when braked hard, tends to shift a
lot of its weight on the nose, and that weight is coming off the mains
and causing them to lose traction. In a taildragger, you can get the
tail up immediately after touchdown, and use brake and elevator to
control pitch, and with lots of braking early on there's enough
elevator authority to keep the tail where you want it. It has to by
tail-high to stop the wing's lifting. The trick is to know when to
ease up on the brakes and get the tail on the ground.

Dan

In article
,
wrote:

On Jul 7, 11:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
taildragger, depending. The trike, when braked hard, tends to shift a
lot of its weight on the nose, and that weight is coming off the mains
and causing them to lose traction. In a taildragger, you can get the
tail up immediately after touchdown, and use brake and elevator to
control pitch, and with lots of braking early on there's enough
elevator authority to keep the tail where you want it. It has to by
tail-high to stop the wing's lifting. The trick is to know when to
ease up on the brakes and get the tail on the ground.

Be VERY, VERY careful when doing this on wet grass!
It gets real interesting when the tail is up, the brakes are on, and the
mains are sliding down the runway. :-0

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

"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.

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.

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

"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

wrote in
:

On Jul 7, 11:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
taildragger, depending. The trike, when braked hard, tends to shift a
lot of its weight on the nose, and that weight is coming off the mains
and causing them to lose traction. In a taildragger, you can get the
tail up immediately after touchdown, and use brake and elevator to
control pitch, and with lots of braking early on there's enough
elevator authority to keep the tail where you want it. It has to by
tail-high to stop the wing's lifting. The trick is to know when to
ease up on the brakes and get the tail on the ground.


Well, yeah, but I'd rather do it with the tail down!

In any case, I'd disagree about being able to brake harder in the
taildrgger. I agree that the nosewheel has a tendency to dig in, bu tif you
have the stick in your gut that's not a problem at speed and near max
braking is available. Braking that hard in taildragger is going to lead to
grief!

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