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.

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

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"

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

"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

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

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

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?

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

The biggest issue in my opinion is what happens if the nose wheel
"digs in" on a soft runway, which obviously can't happen with a tail
dragger.

A secondary issue is that you CAN put special purpose mains on a
tail dragger that if put on a trike would put the prop into the
ground when parked.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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