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!

"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.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:



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.

Direct contradiciton to a latter statement. Wow, who would have guessed?

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.

Has zip **** to do with a tail wheel.

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.

It's not relative here either.

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.

No it doesn't. Under full power you can get a trikes tail on the ground at
almost zero ground speed.
Who have you been talking to, MX?

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.

Have another drink.

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"


Learn to ride a bike. They stop quicker on soft fields, duh?

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

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

Or your tail between your legs.


In any case, I'd disagree about being able to brake harder in the
taildrgger.

That's because you are incompetent.


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.

You didn't think so two posts up.

Braking that hard in taildragger is going to lead to
grief!



Bull****. If you can't fly one, rent a trike.

On 2008-07-07, wrote:
If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.

You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes, though.
Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to want to keep
the tail low throughout the takeoff run.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), 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?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, John Smith wrote:

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

Done that, in a 185, braking as hard as I could with the tail
way up. It'll stop much shorter than the POH says, even when the grass
is wet.

Dan

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:C_Hck.18504$%q.17195
@newsfe24.lga:


"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.


You're a moron and you know nothing about airplanes.


Bertie

"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

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


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:



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.

Direct contradiciton to a latter statement. Wow, who would have
guessed?

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.

Has zip **** to do with a tail wheel.

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.

It's not relative here either.

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.

No it doesn't. Under full power you can get a trikes tail on the
ground at almost zero ground speed.

Some of them, fjukkkwit.



Who have you been talking to, MX?


Why, jealous?


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.

Have another drink.


Like you'd know, fjukktard


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"


Learn to ride a bike. They stop quicker on soft fields, duh?


Which would explain the multiple blows to your head..