Taildraggers - What's the big whoop?

Not to blow my own horn or anything, but I have heard the skywagon referred to as "a man's airplane."

After cranking and cranking on the trim, wrestling with the flaps, and landing the beast in cross winds that make your legs sore, (I'm not exaggerating), they may be right.

Your 90lb. niece or pajama boy ain't gonna cut it. :nonod:
 
txflyer said:
Not to blow my own horn or anything, but I have heard the skywagon referred to as "a man's airplane."

After cranking and cranking on the trim, wrestling with the flaps, and landing the beast in cross winds that make your legs sore, (I'm not exaggerating), they may be right.

Your 90lb. niece or pajama boy ain't gonna cut it. :nonod:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2: Boy are we impressed.

I once took a flight tour in Alaska with a more than middle-aged lady in a 185 who couldn't have weighed more than 120 lbs. But I'm glad your plane makes you feel manly. ;)
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
Just sayin' ... it's not yo mama's 172. :tongue:
Click to expand...

I took a flight with a petite near granny in a 185 who could fly circles around you. The way you describe it, it sounds like your Cessna is tough for you to handle. Maybe I need to find that lady to fly your plane for you.
 
DavidWhite said:
Jeez there's a whole **** ton of videos of hot girls soloing, strangely enough none of them show outside the airplane.

Vanity is a funny thing. I do take the occasional flying selfie, but none of my flying videos have ever just been a camera fixed on me in the cockpit.
Click to expand...
I do that, much of the time. Here's a frame from one of my videos:
best%20side.jpg

People tell me I caught my best side.

Ron Wanttaja
 
RoscoeT said:
I took a flight with a petite near granny in a 185 who could fly circles around you. The way you describe it, it sounds like your Cessna is tough for you to handle. Maybe I need to find that lady to fly your plane for you.
Click to expand...




I think I hit a nerve. :lightning:

There are plenty of folks who can fly better than me I'm sure.

But the fact remains, skywagon's have been referred to as a man's airplane in many articles, and they are more work than your average single. I do take pride that I own one and can fly the hell out of it, even if it's trivial to a jet pilot like yourself.
 
txflyer said:
But the fact remains, skywagon's have been referred to as a man's airplane in many articles...
Click to expand...

If BS magazine articles help you affirm your manhood, hey great. How many of those were written by ladies?

txflyer said:
I do take pride that I own one and can fly the hell out of it, even if it's trivial to a jet pilot like yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't fly jets...and are you trying to insult jet pilots?
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
If BS magazine articles help you affirm your manhood, hey great. How many of those were written by ladies?



I don't fly jets...and are you trying to insult jet pilots?
Click to expand...







Sorry if I made you feel inadequate. :)

Or maybe you should lay off the booze. It makes you bitter.


dont_drink_and_post_sweatshirt.jpg
 
txflyer said:
Sorry if I made you feel inadequate. :)
Click to expand...

LOL. Sorry I mentioned that little lady flying the 185. Go buy some bigger tires if it'll help your man mojo bounce back a bit. :D
 
txflyer said:
After cranking and cranking on the trim, wrestling with the flaps, and landing the beast in cross winds that make your legs sore, (I'm not exaggerating), they may be right.



Your 90lb. niece or pajama boy ain't gonna cut it. :nonod:
Click to expand...

And yet somehow they do. My grandfather weighed less than 130lbs when he was flying left seat in the B-25.

You don't have to be a big macho man to fly old aluminum.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You don't have to be a big macho man to fly old aluminum.
Click to expand...

The 185 isn't considered old aluminum. The 185 is the Cessna that you must stay proficient in or you will get hurt.
 
Tom-D said:
The 185 is the Cessna that you must stay proficient in or you will get hurt.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that. His post wasn't about proficiency. He was trying to make it sound like you had to be Sind big beefy dude to manage the plane. Any body type can be proficient in flying an airplane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not arguing that. His post wasn't about proficiency. He was trying to make it sound like you had to be Sind big beefy dude to manage the plane. Any body type can be proficient in flying an airplane.
Click to expand...
The point is, the 185 requires either a lot of pull on the yoke or finesse. If you are not really proficient you better be strong.

There are pilots that will trim to landing speeds, many feel that is dangerous simply because when trimmed to landing speeds and required to make a go around, you can not push hard enough to over come the trim, the 185 will climb and stall.
There are several accidents in the 185 to prove this belief, plus the accident rate in 185s is way higher than the rest of the line. and it isn't just the usage either. The 185 with the 550 is a wonderful aircraft but many pilots that try to fly them aren't up to the task.
 
Tom-D said:
...There are several accidents in the 185 to prove this belief, plus the accident rate in 185s is way higher than the rest of the line.
Click to expand...
I took a look at that. I figured the Cessna 182 would be a good plane to compare to the 185. In the 1998-2012 timeframe, here's the total accident count:

182: 1014
185: 288

There are obviously more 182s than 185s. I took the most-recent FAA registration database and used the fleet size for both models to compute an annual accident rate:

182: 0.46% /year
185: 1.17% /year

The 185's rate is over twice as high. Curiously, the 182 has a higher fatality rate...21% vs. 15%.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I took a look at that. I figured the Cessna 182 would be a good plane to compare to the 185. In the 1998-2012 timeframe, here's the total accident count:

182: 1014
185: 288

There are obviously more 182s than 185s. I took the most-recent FAA registration database and used the fleet size for both models to compute an annual accident rate:

182: 0.46% /year
185: 1.17% /year

The 185's rate is over twice as high. Curiously, the 182 has a higher fatality rate...21% vs. 15%.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

There's also a significant horsepower difference.
 
+1 for the not trimming all the way back in a C-180.

On a go-around, the force required to hold her down as you trim is down right scary.
 
Henning said:
There's also a significant horsepower difference.
Click to expand...
And differences in the typical usage. And typical owner.

Which is the problem with trying to make sense of these numbers. Example: Some years ago the IIHS published a study on driver fatalities per some number of cars. The rate for the Mercury Grand Marquis was something like 60 - 80% higher than the Ford Crown Vic - but the actual design of the cars was identical.
 
I'm not following the proficient argument.

It takes brute strength to pull 40 degrees with the manual handle with one arm. Many pilots have a hard time with it. Many posts about it on the 180/185 site prove this out.

One lady simply could not do it. We recommended the handle extender thing for her. When I'm old and give out, the 180 will have to go. You have to wrestle the airplane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Several throughout the 20s and 30s including at least one with his whole family onboard. I'd have to re-read his autobiography to tally them up.

Edit: looks like Silvaire beat me to it.
Click to expand...

I just finished a book called the aviators, a recent bio. I'd like to look them up as I don't think the book mentions more than the one. The source is?
 
I am 5'2"" and flew a C180 in the back country in Idaho. Very pretty country, exciting new learning curve for me. I couldn't reach the manual flap handle at all without completely leaning over and even then it was difficult. So, the woman flying with me ( the owner of the plane and back country CFI was deemed "flap girl") we'd set up and I'd say - deploy the flaps, Flap Girl, and she'd pull the lever. We had a great time and I learned alot. I'd have to have a handle extension if I were alone.
Another thing we learned was to leave my seat all the way forward and I'd just crawl out the right side. It was too difficult to get back into place if we let it back!

Sometimes being short is a pain in the rear but other times - like on an airliner when you need to stand and stretch and can do so in the window seat without hitting your head on the overhead bins it's ok. At least if your short you can use step stools and pillows but you can't exactly un tall yourself.

Taxiing some heavier planes is harder in wind just because you can barely get the plane to turn with all the rudder in the way, so your leg gets tired and stronger over time.. Or you shut it down and go get a darn tow.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Harder to kill real men?


Dan
Click to expand...

No, 185s are mostly bush planes, and bush pilots aren't afraid of the bottom end of the envelope, in fact, they are well versed with it. They go in right at stall speed rather than 20+ over.
 
We installed an Alpha Systems AOA and took some of the guess work out of it.

Keep it on the blue dot, and the stall horn will sound on every flair.
 
txflyer said:
We installed an Alpha Systems AOA and took some of the guess work out of it.

Keep it on the blue dot, and the stall horn will sound on every flair.
Click to expand...

I somehow manage that without an AOA!

A little video from a flight Karen and I took today (less than 2 minutes, best at 720p):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEDltmHhwrE

I totally forgot to turn on my visor-mounted GoPro for the landing, but Karen had her iPhone4 at the ready.
 
FastEddieB said:
I somehow manage that without an AOA!

A little video from a flight Karen and I took today (less than 2 minutes, best at 720p):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEDltmHhwrE

I totally forgot to turn on my visor-mounted GoPro for the landing, but Karen had her iPhone4 at the ready.
Click to expand...

AOA might help you reduce all that floating and not having to rely on power down final. :)
 
What got me started on this track was that "Recommendations for a fast taildragger" thread. I'm guessing that what got the OP of that thread out looking for a taildragger was that someone told him he needed to fly one to be a topnotch pilot. From reading this, and from what I've been able to research, this is what I've come up with:

Taildragger advantages:
Typically, though not always lighter. For an RV sized airplane, it's around a 15 pound savings
Less drag. For an RV, that usually means around a 2 mph difference. For draggier planes, it's probably less.
For the gear and wheels typically installed on aircraft, the taildragger handles soft/rough fields better.
More prop clearance in the three point position.
Lower tail height in the three point position, mostly important if you're loading the aircraft onto a trailer.

Trigear advantages:
Easier to taxi
Easier to take off
Easier to land
Passengers are more comfortable sitting level while on the ground.
Greater ability to handle crosswinds
Better visibility while on the ground
Can use brakes more aggressively if needed.
Can be build to do well on soft fields (see CH701 and CH750)

I assume that the gist of the argument that a taildragger makes you a better pilot is that it is more demanding to taxi, take off, and land. I suppose if you are the sort of person who does as little as possible to successfully fly, that would be true. I would also suppose if you are that sort of person that you should find something else to do with your time, that flying is not for you. We should all be trying to refine and improve our technique all the time. I just don't see the advantage in flying an airplane that's ready to bite you should you make a mistake or should an unexpected gust occur, unless that airplane provides you with something you need in return. I see why someone who operates off of a soft field would want a Cessna 180 instead of a 182, but for those of us who only fly off of hard surfaces, I'm not seeing it.

I realize that there are some specialized aircraft, such as ag planes and unlimited aerobatic aircraft that conventional gear is better for, but for what most of us do, I don't see the advantage.

M
 
Basically boils down to: they are just plain flat out cooler

037.jpg


end of discussion...
 
FormerHangie said:
I realize that there are some specialized aircraft, such as ag planes and unlimited aerobatic aircraft that conventional gear is better for, but for what most of us do, I don't see the advantage.

M
Click to expand...

For many of us, we enjoy the old aircraft and get a sense of satisfaction of building / flying them.
The reason for the manufacturing companies to put the gear on the nose was all you mentioned, simply because there were way too many aircraft were wrecked, and students hurt.
Plus with the advent of airports needing to be near cities, and land availability the big square fields that were used in early aviation couldn't be made, now cross wind landings were required.
Conventional gear were not meant to do this, we simply learned to cope.
 
Taildraggers offer a simpler landing gear arrangement than conventional gear, but the benefits of conventional gear are undeniable as is also undeniable that conventional gear is more forgiving and requires less skill/attention. I've never flown a Taildraggers but is on my to do list simply because I know I'll learn a thing or two and it will make me a better pilot. I believe the Navy to this day requires its test pilots to log Taildragger time. There are no Taildraggers in active service in the Navy, but obviously the Navy thinks its test pilots can benefit from the skill set required to handle taildraggers. I think most of us would too


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Silvaire said:
I completely understand now why you have thirty thousand posts on POA
Click to expand...

Well, I also have a couple hundred hours working in those Air Tractors. Not much cool about them. They aren't comfortable, they don't handle particularly nicely, they typically stink, and they aren't pretty.They get a job done while using ungodly amounts of fuel for the speed is about it. It's like saying an F-350 is 'cool'. :dunno: At least the radial ones sound nice and don't stink near as bad, but at the end of the day your body and brain are buzzing from the vibration.
 
Perezhr said:
Taildraggers offer a simpler landing gear arrangement than conventional gear, but the benefits of conventional gear are undeniable as is also undeniable that conventional gear is more forgiving and requires less skill/attention. I've never flown a Taildraggers but is on my to do list simply because I know I'll learn a thing or two and it will make me a better pilot. I believe the Navy to this day requires its test pilots to log Taildragger time. There are no Taildraggers in active service in the Navy, but obviously the Navy thinks its test pilots can benefit from the skill set required to handle taildraggers. I think most of us would too


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Uhhh, "Conventional Gear" IS a tail dragger, Nose wheel is known as Tri Gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top