Not my pic. No news story. Not sharing particulars but it looks like lessons might be learned

Matthew Rogers said:
But don't try to argue that tailwheel planes are currently less expensive to insure, they aren't. People who have recently tried to insure them have reported this over and over again.
Click to expand...
There are many variables besides where the little wheel is mounted. From personal observation of others and paying my own bill, RV rates seem pretty even across the board with experience, age, and (of course) hull value having a larger effect than nosewheel/tailwheel alone. FWIW, I have never worried about my rates going up when I "see a taildragger crash." Rates for less popular airplanes may be more affected by single events. From another point of view, at least for a time there were more tricycle RV's flipping over on landing than taildraggers...but that doesn't fit the narrative.

Nauga,
skimming the anecdata
 
PBF-Skub-1.png

https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/
 
nauga said:
There are many variables besides where the little wheel is mounted. From personal observation of others and paying my own bill, RV rates seem pretty even across the board with experience, age, and (of course) hull value having a larger effect than nosewheel/tailwheel alone.
Click to expand...

FWIW my tailwheel insurance (liability & hull) went down a little more than 5% this year from its already more than reasonable cost ...
 
Most tailwheels are more expensive that the average PA-28 or 172, perhaps that has something to do with insurance costs? The plane in the picture is probably worth, in this market, between $150,000 and $180,000. What's a run of the mill PA-28 worth?

Full coverage on my 180 is $2500 per year, $500 deductible, with a hull value of $150,000. I think every $10k of hull value was another $100.
 
Wagondriver said:
Full coverage on my 180 is $2500 per year, $500 deductible, with a hull value of $150,000. I think every $10k of hull value was another $100.
Click to expand...

I pay over $1000/year for my little Ford Ranger that likely isn't worth more than $5k. At that rate, a $150K truck would cost $30K/year. $2500 for your airplane sounds pretty reasonable to me. I wonder what the full coverage on an equivalent trike would be; say, a $150K C206?
 
Warmi said:
I am not sure what is the point of rehashing this yet again… people who do detailed risk assessment for living base their financial protections on the fact that trikes are a significantly safer choice but hey ….folks on this forum just know better …
Click to expand...
That’s not accurate in my experience. My insurance quotes have been a %of insured value. Aircraft type had no impact on pricing. It wasn’t always like that… when I had minimal experience in tail dragger the rate was substantially higher than a tricycle gear. Airplanes are generally about a safe as the driver. As you said the insurance guys are pretty good at what they do…
 
Warmi said:
A guy was shopping for a Rans plane which are offered as trikes or taildraggers … quoting him about insurance costs:

That quote was about 15% higher than for the trike version – with 100% of the difference being in the "physical damage" premium (hull insurance). Liability and medical were identical for both planes.
Click to expand...
Sucks to be that guy.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Aircraft type had no impact on pricing. It wasn’t always like that… when I had minimal experience in tail dragger the rate was substantially higher than a tricycle gear. Airplanes are generally about a safe as the driver. As you said the insurance guys are pretty good at what they do…
Click to expand...
Right. The insurance company wants to know your time in type. They are fully aware that the 100-hour 172 driver will be much more likely to wreck his new Husky than the 750-hour Supercub pilot. That rate increase will also apply to the same 100-hour 172 pilot who buys a 210 or Bonanza.

A cropspraying company is going to pay way more for hull (if they can even get it) for a fresh, low-time pilot, and that's not just because it's a tailwheel airplane. Low-level ops are inherently hazardous.
 
I never understood the whole aura around tailwheel planes and pilots. Show me how many nosewheel planes ground loop. The only recent accidents around here I know of are an ag plane hitting wires, and a ground loop. I built my plane and wrestled over which configuration and decided nosewheel will get me almost anywhere I want to go, avoid the possibility of ground loops, probably reduce the chances of a nose over, and provide better forward visibility on the ground…..okay, also granted my nosewheel is attached to a steel cage not the firewall, I only have 200 hours and tend to be more of an airplane driver than a pilot, ha ha. I need all the help I can get.
 
Last edited:
caverjamie said:
I never understood the whole aura around tailwheel planes and pilots. Show me how many nosewheel planes ground loop. The only recent accidents around here I know of are an ag plane hitting wires, and a ground loop. I built my plane and wrestled over which configuration and decided nosewheel will get me almost anywhere I want to go, avoid the possibility of ground loops, probably reduce the chances of a nose over, and provide better forward visibility on the ground…..okay, also granted my nosewheel is attached to a steel cage not the firewall, I only have 200 hours and tend to be more of an airplane driver than a pilot, ha ha. I need all the help I can get.
Click to expand...
It’s like deciding which shovel you need. They have different benefits and different weaknesses. No different than deciding helicopter or airplane. Both are safe but are good a very different things. One is not better than the other. Arguing that either one is inherently better just because of the location of the third wheel is dumb regardless of which side of the argument chosen. Either one can be the better choice depending on the task at hand.
 
That wasn’t a ground loop, it was excessive application of brakes, and the why is impossible to know. Poor approach, gusty crosswind, animal on the runway? It’s pretty difficult to get a tail to come up on a Skywagon and in most cases it’s easy to recover from.
 
Jim K said:
:(

That surplus telehandler they're fixing to pick it up with is pretty cool, though.

I also find it slightly humorous that they chocked the one wheel that's on the ground. I mean obviously you'd do that before you set it back on its wheels, but it still looks funny.
Click to expand...
That was my thought as well.
 
caverjamie said:
I never understood the whole aura around tailwheel planes and pilots.
Click to expand...

For some of us, it's the pleasure of smoothly controlling the machine... just as some drivers prefer manual transmissions. I suspect most tailwheel pilots prefer manual transmissions.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I pay over $1000/year for my little Ford Ranger that likely isn't worth more than $5k. At that rate, a $150K truck would cost $30K/year. $2500 for your airplane sounds pretty reasonable to me. I wonder what the full coverage on an equivalent trike would be; say, a $150K C206?
Click to expand...

I can’t remember the last time I saw a $150K 206, but these days a project plane would probably cost more than that!
 
caverjamie said:
I never understood the whole aura around tailwheel planes and pilots. Show me how many nosewheel planes ground loop. The only recent accidents around here I know of are an ag plane hitting wires, and a ground loop. I built my plane and wrestled over which configuration and decided nosewheel will get me almost anywhere I want to go, avoid the possibility of ground loops, probably reduce the chances of a nose over, and provide better forward visibility on the ground…..okay, also granted my nosewheel is attached to a steel cage not the firewall, I only have 200 hours and tend to be more of an airplane driver than a pilot, ha ha. I need all the help I can get.
Click to expand...
Oh no, now you will make them mad.
Dana said:
For some of us, it's the pleasure of smoothly controlling the machine... just as some drivers prefer manual transmissions. I suspect most tailwheel pilots prefer manual transmissions.
Click to expand...
It is all about feeling high and mighty and also about nostalgia - not about being any better. In nearly all cases, the tricycle gear reacts faster and more precise than any pilot could in preventing a ground loop (purely based on the positive feedback of its physical design, CG position, physics, etc). Tailwheel planes have negative feedback loop, where things get worse and as they get worse, they get even worse faster. etc.

Even Aston Martin has dropped the manual transmission. With modern automatic transmissions - they "smoothly control" the machine much better than any race car driver ever could. And Carbon Cub just happened to find out that their nosewheel version has better performance than the tailwheel one, oops.
 
caverjamie said:
I never understood the whole aura around tailwheel planes and pilots. Show me how many nosewheel planes ground loop.
Click to expand...
Ignorance is dangerous. The definitive stuff on it: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC90-34.pdf

An excerpt:

upload_2021-12-7_13-36-39.png

Yup. Trikes can and do groundloop. Deny it at your peril.

Some more: https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-tip-week-flying-tip-week-groundlooping-skyhawk/

An excerpt:

upload_2021-12-7_13-38-27.png

Here's a good article. http://acversailles.free.fr/documen...ge/Train_classique/Tri-gear_or_tail-wheel.pdf

Like that article says, there are a lot of myths surrounding taildragging, and trike pilots end up either terrified or dismissive or critical of those of us that do it for fun. Those pilots are not speaking from experience, only from those stories and myths. As a former flight instructor, I saw far too many trikes doing ignorant stuff on landings and sometimes on the takeoffs, and saw airplanes (trikes) damaged because of it. But those stories don't get spread around by trike pilots; it's the taildragger groundloops and noseovers that get published and ridiculed. It's no different than the media disregarding the constant carnage on the highways, but breathlessly reporting on some poor pilot that busted his airplane, and implying how dangerous those little airplanes are. Especially if there wasn't a flight plan filed.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
It is all about feeling high and mighty and also about nostalgia - not about being any better.
Click to expand...

I don't feel high and mighty when flying a tailwheel aircraft, I just enjoy it. Maybe it's partly nostalgia, I fly an open cockpit biplane, after all. Nor is it about being "better"; it's just an additional skill set. OK, I'm "better" at flying a tailwheel aircraft than a pilot who's never learned that skill set... but any average IFR pilot is better than I am at instrument flying, which is a skill set I don't have and am not particularly interested in. Whatever floats your boat.

Matthew Rogers said:
Even Aston Martin has dropped the manual transmission. With modern automatic transmissions - they "smoothly control" the machine much better than any race car driver ever could.
Click to expand...

Aston Martin buyers want auto trannies, so that's what Aston Martin will sell. And yes, modern ones are far more efficient than manual shifting... just not (for some people) as enjoyable. The pleasure of precisely matching rpm by heel-and-toe downshifting while braking going into a turn in a good sportscar is similar to that of making a perfect 3-point landing on a short strip.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
It is all about feeling high and mighty and also about nostalgia - not about being any better. In nearly all cases, the tricycle gear reacts faster and more precise than any pilot could in preventing a ground loop (purely based on the positive feedback of its physical design, CG position, physics, etc). Tailwheel planes have negative feedback loop, where things get worse and as they get worse, they get even worse faster. etc.
Click to expand...
If you're going to disparage every taildragger pilot as you've done, you should at least get the signs right on your feedback loops - outside of HR, negative feedback is stabilizing, positive destabilizing. ;) Maybe a little less heat, more light.

Nauga,
neither mighty nor high
 
caverjamie said:
I never understood the whole aura around tailwheel planes and pilots. Show me how many nosewheel planes ground loop. The only recent accidents around here I know of are an ag plane hitting wires, and a ground loop. I built my plane and wrestled over which configuration and decided nosewheel will get me almost anywhere I want to go, avoid the possibility of ground loops, probably reduce the chances of a nose over, and provide better forward visibility on the ground…..okay, also granted my nosewheel is attached to a steel cage not the firewall, I only have 200 hours and tend to be more of an airplane driver than a pilot, ha ha. I need all the help I can get.
Click to expand...

Not a nose dragger in sight.
F4F83DDC-CD16-43AA-B227-4440838620E4.jpeg
 
I'm really not much of a tail wheel pilot but I learned tail wheel because I believed it was another skill set I could learn that would help me become better at piloting an aircraft. I don't think this makes me a greater pilot but I tend to believe it makes me a better pilot. Not better than anyone else as I'm not in a competition with anyone other than myself.

I don't understand the reason(s) why those that can't, or don't, fly conventional gear planes feel a need to disparage those that choose to do so. :dunno:
 
Daleandee said:
I'm really not much of a tail wheel pilot but I learned tail wheel because I believed it was another skill set I could learn that would help me become better at piloting an aircraft. I don't think this makes me a greater pilot but I tend to believe it makes me a better pilot. Not better than anyone else as I'm not in a competition with anyone other than myself.

I don't understand the reason(s) why those that can't, or don't, fly conventional gear planes feel a need to disparage those that choose to do so. :dunno:
Click to expand...
To be fair the same could be said of some tailwheel pilots disparaging pilots of the airplanes with nose gear.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
To be fair the same could be said of some tailwheel pilots disparaging pilots of the airplanes with nose gear.
Click to expand...

Just human nature I guess. I wanted a tail wheel endorsement to improve myself. Like I said, it makes me better but I don't mean it makes me better than anyone else.

Those here with IFR training are improving themselves by adding to their skills but I want to believe that no one goes to get an IFR rating for the purpose of making themselves feel superior to someone else. I am a bit naïve at times though ... o_O
 
Daleandee said:
Just human nature I guess. I wanted a tail wheel endorsement to improve myself. Like I said, it makes me better but I don't mean it makes me better than anyone else.

Those here with IFR training are improving themselves by adding to their skills but I want to believe that no one goes to get an IFR rating for the purpose of making themselves feel superior to someone else. I am a bit naïve at times though ... o_O
Click to expand...
Well you see there is always that ten percent…

it’s only human natural
 
I have 2 flying airplanes and one project. All tailwheels. I have 3 vehicles, all manual transmissions. My newest car is a 1996, oldest a 1959. My airplanes are a 1953, a 1949, and a homebuilt finished in 2016.
I do not disparage those that fly nose wheel airplanes, at some point I will probably own one. But, I take my 180 places that would kill a nose wheel airplane, its not very often, but it has given me great enjoyment being able to land in the pasture at home.
Part of the thing I like about aviation is that there is always more to learn, always a skill to improve, I am far from an excellent pilot, but I aspire to be one. Flying something more challenging is part of the allure of aviation in general.
 
Wagondriver said:
But, I take my 180 places that would kill a nose wheel airplane, its not very often, but it has given me great enjoyment being able to land in the pasture at home.
Click to expand...

I used to do off airport work in Alaska. I have taken a C-206 into off airport landing areas where most tail wheel pilots won't go.

One time the chief pilot of the company I was flying for and I went to check out a private landing area by request of the land owner. We found what we believed to be the right spot and landed. Some folks came running over and asked us what was wrong. In a C-207.

Is this Mr. Smiths land.??

No, he lives a couple miles that way.

Oops, sorry. Whose landing strip is this.?

Its not a landing strip, we are clearing the area to build a cabin....

If landing your plane in the pasture near home gives you pleasure, then that is all that counts, so keep it up.!! (and pictures)

Wagondriver said:
Part of the thing I like about aviation is that there is always more to learn, always a skill to improve,
Click to expand...

I like the way you think.!!
 
Wagondriver said:
I take my 180 places that would kill a nose wheel airplane, its not very often, but it has given me great enjoyment being able to land in the pasture at home.
Click to expand...

I also like grass runways and there are quite a few that I have flown into with my tail wheel plane. The manufacturer also has a nose roller version and I owned one before building my current plane. The factory gives caution that their nose roller model may not fare very well on grass runways. I found that to be true.
 
Most of my flying is in tailwheel planes. Flying a tailwheel plane will make you a better pilot because there is less room for error. That's not an insult. I highly recommend everyone gets their tailwheel endorsement even if they only fly tricycle gear planes.

That being said, I just bought a 182 and I'm excited about it. They all get you in the air and I'm not going to deny there will be a little less stress in a crosswind! It's my first tricycle gear plane... welcome me to the dark side!
 
I love my 185 with all my heart, but there’s no denying the insurance is higher. When I went from the Bonanza to the 185, my insurance doubled. If I sell it to trade for a retirement airplane, it’ll be to save on insurance. Or, it might be because there’s no fuel for an IO-520.
 
I think the manual transmission analogy applies better to a CS prop vs fixed pitch. Taildraggers vs nose draggers is more like anti-lock brakes or locking brakes. Driving is the same but when stopping locking brakes or a taildragger you need to have better feel of the pedals.
 
Stewartb said:
I think the manual transmission analogy applies better to a CS prop vs fixed pitch. Taildraggers vs nose draggers is more like anti-lock brakes or locking brakes. Driving is the same but when stopping locking brakes or a taildragger you need to have better feel of the pedals.
Click to expand...
No, because people don't choose non antilock brakes or fixed pitch props because of driving or flying pleasure, but they do choose stick shifts and tailwheels for that reason.
 
Says you. I haven’t flown a nosedragger since the early ‘90’s but there have been a lot of days in unfavorable winds that I wished I did.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I love my 185 with all my heart, but there’s no denying the insurance is higher. When I went from the Bonanza to the 185, my insurance doubled. If I sell it to trade for a retirement airplane, it’ll be to save on insurance. Or, it might be because there’s no fuel for an IO-520.
Click to expand...
For a low time pilot with taildragger only experience, the opposite is true. I know, because I cannot get insured in a retract, but I can get 185 insurance.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Most of my flying is in tailwheel planes. Flying a tailwheel plane will make you a better pilot because there is less room for error. That's not an insult. I highly recommend everyone gets their tailwheel endorsement even if they only fly tricycle gear planes.

That being said, I just bought a 182 and I'm excited about it. They all get you in the air and I'm not going to deny there will be a little less stress in a crosswind! It's my first tricycle gear plane... welcome me to the dark side!
Click to expand...

That’s a bit like saying “if you drive with one eye closed , it will make you a better driver because there is less room for error” - why make your life more difficult ?
 
Warmi said:
That’s a bit like saying “if you drive with one eye closed , it will make you a better driver because there is less room for error” - why make your life more difficult ?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's like saying if you can drive a Corvette to it's limits, you'll be better at driving your Corolla. Some people will be happy driving the Corolla!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top