Flying different airplanes with different characteristics *can* make you a better pilot, but it takes more than sitting in them and watching things happen.
That’s just the final nail in the coffin but not the cause of death.
It sure is a pretty big dealbreaker!
Not for … say a Space Shuttle
So all gliders should be cranked deltas?Not for … say a Space Shuttle
You don’t know **** about me and how I use my plane so , with all due respect, get lost …
If you really dug into it you would probably find that the safety rational (which was not the only rationale) for going to tricycle gear was the increased cost of training for an equivalent level of safety for tailwheels. That might sound the same as 'because it is safer' but it is not.
Which engine is represented in the tailwheel numbers? The nosewheel version is 50 lb heavier than the taildragger with the same motor, and almost 80lb heavier than the small-motor taildragger. I tend to be suspicious of advertised performance (including my own airplane) but adding a nosewheel in and of itself is not likely to cause performance, especially cruise performance, to improve. The smart consumer would be asking what else changed.
Watch out. Just because they list no difference in empty weight between the taildragger and nosedragger doesn't mean it's not there. In fact, their website lists the empty weight at 1084 pounds, yet the pirep done by AOPA shows an EW of 1212 pounds, and Wikipedia shows it as 1216 pounds. Furthermore, the xCub (taildragger) has an IO-360, while the nxCub (trike) has an IO-393. I think that might change the performance more than a bit.
When we had too many students start one fall, we had to put some of them into the Citabrias for their ab initio training. The rest went into the 172s. It took no longer for the Citabria students to solo than it did the 172 students. This seems odd, but the thing is that when the taildragger is the first thing you fly, you learn it quickly. Primacy. But when those 172 students went to get the taildragger checkout, it took them several hours to master it, sometimes 8 or 10. They had to overcome the laziness their feet had developed in the 172s. Again, Primacy, which says that the things first learned are the most unshakeable.
I think basic handling qualities has as much to do with this as primacy. By way of (another) example, I was comfortable landing the first taildragger I landed after only a few hours (post-ASEL) but landing a certain high performance trike trainer took much longer. Conversely, a basic checkout in a fixed-gear recip trike rarely takes more than a day, while it took a *lot* longer to be comfortable landing a little aerobatic biplane taildragger - and 'comfortable' sometimes in question. I don't contend that one configuration is easier or safer than another, it's highly dependent on the specific airplanes, and in some cases even the loadout.
This is getting circular. I can avoid unicycles also. This has no bearing upon whether choosing to ride one is satisfying or worthwhile. I can avoid learning to ski by riding a snowboard. I can avoid falling down by walking instead of roller skating. The manual transmission analogy is appropriate because there is absolutely no benefit to driving one, they require more effort and skill and I can have identical performance by simply avoiding them. Not all reasons for doing things need to be practical. Avoid gliders by flying a plane with a motor. I can avoid pointless internet discussion by putting down my phone. But I do think the valid argument was made that flying a tailwheel will improve one's ability to fly with precision, and that such skills are often of practical importance when landing nose wheel aircraft in strong crosswinds, for example.
The deHavilland Vampire would do that. Its ground attitude was such that it could set fire to the pavement.
I guess you've never driven in the wilderness or though deep snow. The automatic is severely handicapped if it get stuck. You push on the gas and the torque increases until the wheels start to slip, and then the torque converter takes over and speed up that slipping wheel, either creating ice under the tire or digging the thing in further. It's either all or nothing with that transmission. With the manual, you put it in a higher gear to reduce and control the torque, using both throttle and clutch, so that you can get the thing moving without spinning the wheels. Been there, done that many times. Automatics now often have traction control, cutting fuel to several cylinders to try to prevent wheel spin. More automation to try to save the stupid car.
I would put my money on the guy with the most recent experience and the worst OCD.
So If you are saying OCD about great landings, maybe...
Maybe. It has that same broken-backed look of Cessna's L-19. Forward viz (in the 750TW) looks like it would be terrible.
All those those that care can compete. I’ll drink whiskey, smoke cigars and score the landings.the bet isn’t for an individual but the one group vs the other… would be a fun reason to have to fly some Saturday…. Maybe we should schedule the “showdown”
Oh, taildragger, definitely:I want a plane the TO and lands from a hover, don't care if it a trike or tailwheel....
Wait 18 months and it will happen all over again when a newbie brings it up.
Let's be honest here ... while the Zenith 750 is a great plane for what it is the thing is UGGG-LEEE in any configuration. I wanted to build a 701 years ago but just could not get past how ugly the thing is. My apologies to anyone that owns one ...
Their trike version looks good - just as you put it , it has this badass look ,especially with a nice paint theme.
