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

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...
Why learn to fly? It makes your life a lot more difficult. Lots of study, lots of money spent, lots of commuting, stressing out over exams and checkrides. Then you constantly have to rent, or get a loan to buy an old airplane and be faced with maintenance hassles. Why not just buy a boat and be on the water the same afternoon? So much easier. A lot less regulation, probably less risk.

Same goes for the IFR ticket. It's just blood, sweat and tears getting that. Not much room for error there, either. The fact that it makes you a better pilot and could save your life is irrelevant, I suppose.
 
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...
I guess I don't see how your analogy is relevant. No one is talking about physically handicapping the pilot.
 
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...
Why ride a bicycle? There are so many good tricycles. And don't even think about a unicycle - completely pointless.
 
Atypicalguy said:
And don't even think about a unicycle - completely pointless.
Click to expand...
I rode unicycles. Still have one hanging in the garage. At my age (68) it's a lot risker now but I should get it out and go for a ride. The last time I did that I remembered why I didn't commute on it. So much work just to stay upright. It's at least ten times the work of biking, and much slower. You start to realize just how many muscles your body has. They all hurt when you're not used to it.

So why did I learn unicycling at 14? Because it was there and I wanted to master it. Why did I learn to fly taildraggers? Because they were there and I wanted to master them. The fact that they were handier in remote places was a factor, too. And their maintenance is easier, since the nosegear is a perennial source of trouble, and it weighs more and presents more drag. Taildragging ability opens up the world of antique aircraft, as well. A trike pilot is stuck with trikes like a driver who learned only on automatic transmissions is stuck with cars with automatics.

Besides that, the trike has its own stability issues that few people realize. Just try turning out of a downwind taxi to face upwind a little too quick and watch that inside main come off the ground. There have been too many wingtips busted that way, and sometimes it goes onto its nose as well when that happens. Trikes are like the old Robin Reliant three-wheeler cars in Britain: all the engine weight is over the front wheel, and they roll over real easy. Banger racing is fun to watch when they're involved. Their geometry of having the engine over the nosewheel is exactly the same as a trike:

 
Top Gear had a great episode on the Robin Reliant - or maybe it was the Reliant Robin. Give it a google. Highly entertaining.
 
I’m not a CFI but for the most part I can tell when I’m riding with a fellow pilot if they have tailwheel time. I fly a Cessna 140, 150 and a 172… so both TW and trike…

bad habits can creep in on anyone operating anything… but when you’re flying a plane with Cessnas Land-o-Matic trike config or one of its cousins you have an airplane that helps bandaid bad habits… flying a TW is like having a cfi with you all the time… when ya land a nosedragger a little crooked to the direction of travel unless it’s severe not much happens…squeak of the tires, some side load in the main gear but likely no instant damage, and you think you landed ok… Do that in the TW and the cfi-o-matic built into every TW plane will be yelling at you as you dance to undo your error… so your error is less likely to develop into a habit.

Ive ridden right seat watching half the runway slip away in float too many times, experienced numerous landing in a slight crab still, and repeatedly enjoyed her giving up the ghost of lift 18” off the runway… and holding the centerline seems relatively optional to many… All of these pilots I was with seen little wrong with the landings either… It wasn’t the less than perfect landing I noticed as much as their acceptance of it as decent… Do I claim landing perfection every time? Heck no, but my TW reminds me that I didn’t do it right when I don’t and keeps me from letting it develop into a habit that I see nothing wrong with.

I had the 172 out last week in gusty nasty winds that once would have puckered my poop shooter… not anymore- not because I’m awesome but because the skills my TW forces me to not let slip.
 
Yes the 140 prepares you to fight for the centerline with every landing. So when you have to do it in real crosswinds, you are more current and potentially less freaked out.

There is something to say for doing things that are really challenging. When you do it right, you really feel a sense of accomplishment. Just like a violin solo, or a gymnast or whatever skill set you want to talk about. The ability to do the correct thing at the correct moment when it counts is always worth pursuing. That is basically what all sports are about. Why play basketball? It is useless and hard! Ping pong? Forget it- waste of time!
 
Lowflynjack said:
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!
Click to expand...
The thing is - taildraggers are not Corvettes .. they just harder-to-drive Corrolla's ... that's all.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Why learn to fly? It makes your life a lot more difficult. Lots of study, lots of money spent, lots of commuting, stressing out over exams and checkrides. Then you constantly have to rent, or get a loan to buy an old airplane and be faced with maintenance hassles. Why not just buy a boat and be on the water the same afternoon? So much easier. A lot less regulation, probably less risk.

Same goes for the IFR ticket. It's just blood, sweat and tears getting that. Not much room for error there, either. The fact that it makes you a better pilot and could save your life is irrelevant, I suppose.
Click to expand...

II don't fly for profit nor to prove a point. I fly for fun of flying and particulars of how much rudder input I have to maintain and how careful I have to be with its application are necessary but procedural and frankly boring aspects of me being able to enjoy this activity.
More to your point - if I can minimize maintenance and related hassles while still being able to enjoy the activity, I will certainly choose to do so. Choosing a trike over a taildragger allows to to minimize procedural hassle while still enjoying it - once you up there , they both fly pretty much exactly the same.
 
It’s sad really. Being on so many different Facebook type groups I get to see a lot of these mishaps. I don’t have a true statistic but it sure seems that 20% of the people that post about their new airplane come back in a few months asking what to do about their ground looped taildragger.
 
Hey it's a free country. There isnt time for everything. Fundamentally a first world type problem.
 
Warmi said:
once you up there , they both fly pretty much exactly the same.
Click to expand...

In my experience as a student, it is much more challenging to fly a Cub than it is to fly a C150. The 150 makes me feel like a pilot. The Cub sets me on my heels and stubs my toes every time I fly it.

Sent from my SM-A515U using Tapatalk
 
Warmi said:
II don't fly for profit nor to prove a point. I fly for fun of flying and particulars of how much rudder input I have to maintain and how careful I have to be with its application are necessary but procedural and frankly boring aspects of me being able to enjoy this activity.
More to your point - if I can minimize maintenance and related hassles while still being able to enjoy the activity, I will certainly choose to do so. Choosing a trike over a taildragger allows to to minimize procedural hassle while still enjoying it - once you up there , they both fly pretty much exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Maintenance and related hassles????

There is no more maintenance on a tailwheel, in fact probably less. No shimmy dampener, no strut, easier to remove the third wheel for bearing packs, easier to jack the plane.

So, I guess you just fly around with your feet flat on the floor, since the use of rudder and "its application are necessary but procedural and frankly boring aspects". REALLY? You are enjoying the flying so much that you can't be bothered with the proper use of a primary flight control??? I hope you don't do any stalls solo, especially power on stalls.
 
Warmi said:
The thing is - taildraggers are not Corvettes .. they just harder-to-drive Corrolla's ... that's all.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't flown enough taildraggers. No, a Pitts isn't a Corvette... Ferrari might be a better comparison.

Warmi said:
II don't fly for profit nor to prove a point. I fly for fun of flying and particulars of how much rudder input I have to maintain and how careful I have to be with its application are necessary but procedural and frankly boring aspects of me being able to enjoy this activity.
Click to expand...

"Procedural and boring"??? Tailwheel or not, the proper use of the rudder isn't something to be "careful" about, it's what a competent pilot does without thinking about it. "Boring" is no excuse for sloppy piloting.
 
Wagondriver said:
Maintenance and related hassles????

There is no more maintenance on a tailwheel, in fact probably less. No shimmy dampener, no strut, easier to remove the third wheel for bearing packs, easier to jack the plane.

So, I guess you just fly around with your feet flat on the floor, since the use of rudder and "its application are necessary but procedural and frankly boring aspects". REALLY? You are enjoying the flying so much that you can't be bothered with the proper use of a primary flight control??? I hope you don't do any stalls solo, especially power on stalls.
Click to expand...

You should try to understand posts you reply to and then reply.
Read my response and try to correlate my maintenance related reference to what I was responding to.

As far as using rudder , of course I do use it. The particular plane I am flying is designed to almost completely neutralize effects of adverse yaw at normal flying speeds so I generally only end up using rudder when slipping or in slow flight ( or on the ground ) - I use it when I need to use it and my definition of a well engineered plane is one that does not force me to compensate for something that the plane itself can auto-compensate for.
 
Grum.Man said:
I don’t have a true statistic but it sure seems that 20% of the people that post about their new airplane come back in a few months asking what to do about their ground looped taildragger.
Click to expand...
Knock on wood, I've never ground-looped an airplane, but my buddy who probably had 4K hours in his Luscombe commented that the tail passed him more than a few times.

I feel sorry for the guys who never learn to fly tailwheel and have no interest in it. I would have missed out on some really cool airplanes. Not to mention, I couldn't have afforded to own an airplane if not for the low prices of Luscombes, Cessna 140s, etc. We took a group of 5 Cessna 140s from Texas to Blakesburg, Iowa more than once.

Also, I fell in love with aerobatics, getting to fly Pitts, Decathlon, Clipped-wing Cub, T6, Thunder Mustang... and on and on. Experiences that were anything but boring!
 
Atypicalguy said:
Fundamentally a first world type problem.
Click to expand...
It sure is a first-world problem. We are much too rich if we have to get into vicious arguments about trikes vs. taildraggers. Even here in the US and Canada, only one in 500 people hold a pilot license of any sort. 0.2%. That's pretty privileged. And in worldwide terms, it'll be really privileged. One estimate I found was between 1.5 and 2.3 million pilots worldwide, so between 0.017% and 0.029%. A tenth of our percentage.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Knock on wood, I've never ground-looped an airplane, but my buddy who probably had 4K hours in his Luscombe commented that the tail passed him more than a few times.

I feel sorry for the guys who never learn to fly tailwheel and have no interest in it. I would have missed out on some really cool airplanes. Not to mention, I couldn't have afforded to own an airplane if not for the low prices of Luscombes, Cessna 140s, etc. We took a group of 5 Cessna 140s from Texas to Blakesburg, Iowa more than once.

Also, I fell in love with aerobatics, getting to fly Pitts, Decathlon, Clipped-wing Cub, T6, Thunder Mustang... and on and on. Experiences that were anything but boring!
Click to expand...
Agreed, TW airplanes are a hoot to fly. The boring part of flying is going from point A to point B, the fun part is the landing and takeoff. As for the low prices... ha not anymore. Maybe the 65hp Luscombe's are still attainable but 140's are starting to eclipse the 30k mark.
 
Grum.Man said:
Agreed, TW airplanes are a hoot to fly. The boring part of flying is going from point A to point B, the fun part is the landing and takeoff. As for the low prices... ha not anymore. Maybe the 65hp Luscombe's are still attainable but 140's are starting to eclipse the 30k mark.
Click to expand...
Agree, they're not as cheap, but still relatively cheap compared to a 150! I think I paid $28 for my very nice 140 and remember my wife (ex) was very upset with me for spending that much!
 
Warmi said:
I use it when I need to use it and my definition of a well engineered plane is one that does not force me to compensate for something that the plane itself can auto-compensate for.
Click to expand...
That's excessively restrictive, in my opinion. I think the history of 172's is a pretty good indication that they are reasonably well engineered; however, the behavior during a goaround does not meet your criteria. Most (all?) light twins also fail this criteria as demonstrated by Vmca. A trim system or separate mixture control also violate the criteria. I'm not so limited and am willing to train a little harder for an airplane that is more "challenging" in some flight regimes but does what I need it to do, and certainly don't consider them "not well engineered".

Nauga,
and horses for courses
 
Lowflynjack said:
Agree, they're not as cheap, but still relatively cheap compared to a 150! I think I paid $28 for my very nice 140 and remember my wife (ex) was very upset with me for spending that much!
Click to expand...
I sold my 150 two years ago for 18k. Had a nice radio, panel mounted Area gps, LED lights, 400 hour engine, Nice interior, all new glass, and so so paint job, all new exhaust, rebuilt carb. I thought I made out like a bandit then, really kick my self now.
 
I just installed an auto pilot in my experimental taildragger. Is that sacrilegious or what? :eek:
 
Dan Thomas said:
Ever flown a Cub or Champ or Citabria or other old-design airplane? No? You're in for a shock.
Click to expand...
But some of those airframes have nosewheel versions as well. The nosewheel versions (I presume, but do not know for certain) do fly identically to the tailwheel versions. Much like a converted tailwheel C150 vs C150, or the difference between a C170 and C172.

Just because older airplanes are different (harder) to fly, does not make them automatically better.
 
Dana said:
You obviously haven't flown enough taildraggers. No, a Pitts isn't a Corvette... Ferrari might be a better comparison.



"Procedural and boring"??? Tailwheel or not, the proper use of the rudder isn't something to be "careful" about, it's what a competent pilot does without thinking about it. "Boring" is no excuse for sloppy piloting.
Click to expand...

Pitts is a Ferrari ? Frankly what does this have to do with anything I wrote and the context here?
Let me put it more simply - a taildragger version of the same type as a trike - say a type named Corolla … does not automatically become a Corvette just because it is a taildragger version of a Corolla but it is simply still a Corolla that is harder to land .

As far as rudder usage …. I am just not gonna bother because you completely missed my point and are reduced to throwing around generic boilerplate…
 
Warmi said:
Let me put it more simply - a taildragger version of the same type as a trike - say a type named Corolla … does not automatically become a Corvette just because it is a taildragger version of a Corolla but it is simply still a Corolla that is harder to land .
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. Though in many cases, the taildragger version does perform better due to the removed weight and drag of the nosewheel.

But the Corvettes and Ferraris of the aviation world tend to be taildraggers, if only because the pilots who want a flying Ferrari (or flying jeep, with the current bushplane popularity) also tend to prefer a stickshift, er, tailwheel.
 
Dana said:
Absolutely correct. Though in many cases, the taildragger version does perform better due to the removed weight and drag of the nosewheel.

But the Corvettes and Ferraris of the aviation world tend to be taildraggers, if only because the pilots who want a flying Ferrari (or flying jeep, with the current bushplane popularity) also tend to prefer a stickshift, er, tailwheel.
Click to expand...

My point here is that taildragger vs trike is not at all like stickshift vs auto - there is no benefit for using a tail wheel ( except in certain and rare bush like scenarios related to ground clearance ) while there is clear benefit of using a stick - if trade my auto for a stick I know I will get a benefit of being able to control my power/transmission setting much more accurately but what exactly is my benefit for choosing a taildragger vs a trike - that I get use rudder more because I am riding an unstable platform ?
You have a wrong analogy here - you were thinking constant speed vs fixed pitch propeller discussion ..

I have yet to see anyone provide a clear explanation why would I benefit from flying a taildragger if I don’t plan to do crazy **** like landing on a mountain etc … it won’t make me a better pilot , just better at controlling naturally-unstable contraptions … I can get the same benefit by simply avoiding them.
 
Warmi said:
I have yet to see anyone provide a clear explanation why would I benefit from flying a taildragger if I don’t plan to do crazy **** like landing on a mountain etc … it won’t make me a better pilot , just better at controlling naturally-unstable contraptions … I can get the same benefit by simply avoiding them.
Click to expand...
Weight and drag.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Weight and drag.
Click to expand...
CubCrafters would beg to differ. They list no listed difference in weight, drag, top speed, or stall speed between their XCub and the NXCub (nosewheel). One important difference is that their nosewheel version both takes off and lands in a shorter difference than their tailwheel version. So the Nosewheel plane is better in all aspects other than if you need to use an extremely long prop in an area where the extra ground clearance is a factor. And they already took that into account, seeing how the NXCub can go nearly everywhere the XCub can go.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
CubCrafters would beg to differ. They list no listed difference in weight, drag, top speed, or stall speed between their XCub and the NXCub (nosewheel). One important difference is that their nosewheel version both takes off and lands in a shorter difference than their tailwheel version. So the Nosewheel plane is better in all aspects other than if you need to use an extremely long prop in an area where the extra ground clearance is a factor. And they already took that into account, seeing how the NXCub can go nearly everywhere the XCub can go.
Click to expand...
#triggered.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Tell me how the NXCub is worse than the XCub.
Click to expand...
You think they have a vested interest in making one of their planes look worse than the other? Of course not. Let's ignore marketing and look at physics. BIG UGLY thing behind the prop which is a high pressure area, or tiny itty bitty tailwheel in a lower pressure area aft of the tail, clearly lighter, clearly faster in a tailwheel plane.

I flew a 172 swept tail converted to tailwheel that was 5 knots faster than a trike 172 with the same engine and prop.

Look at redbull air race planes. Planes at the bleeding edge of performance are taildraggers... because it's lighter and faster.

Also - strongly consider a chill pill. brah.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
You think they have a vested interest in making one of their planes look worse than the other? Of course not. Let's ignore marketing and look at physics. BIG UGLY thing behind the prop which is a high pressure area, or tiny itty bitty tailwheel in a lower pressure area aft of the tail, clearly lighter, clearly faster in a tailwheel plane.

I flew a 172 swept tail converted to tailwheel that was 5 knots faster than a trike 172 with the same engine and prop.

Look at redbull air race planes. Planes at the bleeding edge of performance are taildraggers... because it's lighter and faster.
Click to expand...
Granted, they are all retractable gear planes, but look at the entire Air Force and Commercial world. They fly nosewheel planes for a reason. There aren't any tailwheel 737s. They don't make them, even if they are flown by pilots with 30,000 hours, because nosewheel planes are safer. The airforce didn't make a tailwheel F16 even though it was only flown by actual fighter pilots. Why? Because it is safer to make them all nosewheel planes.

Edit: Forgot about the Cub. Regardless, the NXCub has better takeoff and landing performance, demonstrated. And you assumption that is has worse speed performance is speculative, vs. a manufacturer's published data.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Granted, they are all retractable gear planes, but look at the entire Air Force and Commercial world. They fly nosewheel planes for a reason. There aren't any tailwheel 737s. They don't make them, even if they are flown by pilots with 30,000 hours, because nosewheel planes are safer. The airforce didn't make a tailwheel F16 even though it was only flown by actual fighter pilots. Why? Because it is safer to make them all nosewheel planes.
Click to expand...
No. Because jet engines would blow up runways if they were pointed at the ground. There's more than one dimension to airplane design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top