Taildraggers - What's the big whoop?

Because you're a puss, AND not a real pilot unless you fly a taildragger.

There, I said it.

Matter settled. Everyone happy? :D:devil::stirpot:
 
Last edited:
Now why'd you have to go and pop my bubble like that?

I'd give my left nut for a polished Beech 18.
 
Henning said:
Well, I also have a couple hundred hours working in those Air Tractors...
Click to expand...

A couple hundred hours? Really? Working?

Did you make a lot of money doing that?

Why'd you quit, the smell?....:popcorn:
 
Silvaire said:
A couple hundred hours? Really? Working?

Did you make a lot of money doing that?

Why'd you quit, the smell?....:popcorn:
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, there's pretty good money in spraying crops. I quit because I knew it would kill me like it killed everyone in my Ag flying class including the instructor/owner Harold Miller and his son John as well as Leland Snow's (the designer of the Air Tractor) son in law Alan, and a few other colleague/friends, one who I watched crash into the field next to me. Out of seven people and one instructor, I'm the last who is above the ground rather than in it.

The second time I "came to" out of thinking about different things in the middle of a field realizing by looking at my Satloc unit that I had just nicely covered 60 acres without paying attention or even thinking about it, I quit. It's a boring job just going back and forth and back and forth and back and forth...all day. The Air Tractor makes it even more tedious because with every turn it's flaps out and flaps in. People think it's the flying next to the ground that makes Ag work dangerous, it's not, it's the boredom and monotony.
 
Henning said:
Uhhh, "Conventional Gear" IS a tail dragger, Nose wheel is known as Tri Gear.
Click to expand...

You are correct! Meant to say tri.....it's 2:50 AM and I don't know why I'm still reading all this stuff :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Henning said:
...People think it's the flying next to the ground that makes Ag work dangerous, it's not, it's the boredom and monotony.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the picture was of a fire bomber and a Champ. You see boredom, monotony and death, I see cool.

Let's just say we're different.
 
Silvaire said:
Yeah but the picture was of a fire bomber and a Champ. You see boredom, monotony and death, I see cool.

Let's just say we're different.
Click to expand...

Did fires in Australia in a Dromader, plenty of death flying flying fires as well.
 
So your adamant, Champs aren't "cool"?
 
I had an air tractor spray our place out at Hereford with GrazonNext for thistle weeds.

That **** works. :yes:

It was costly, but that one job saved us lots of mowing and time. Mowing was not doing anything but spreading it around making it worse.
 
Silvaire said:
So your adamant, Champs aren't "cool"?
Click to expand...

Not really, pretty under powered and not great fun to fly, to slow to get much done. A Decathlon is pretty cool for that genre, a 180hp Super Cub. I used to fly pipeline patrol in a PA-12, it was ok and I figure I'd survive losing the engine on about 85% of my route, but I wouldn't call it cool, maybe pretty through.

The only of the low horsepower 2 seaters I would call cool is Duane Cole's old clipped wing T-Craft, and that's just because it was Duane Cole's. I would own a Luscombe with an O-200, of that genre it's the only one I really like. Maybe a C-140, but it would have to be polished and with an O-200 as well. Less than 100hp I'm not into, I'd be more interested with an O-320, a 160hp would get it out nice and short.
 
If they have wings, top or bottom, rotors blades, props, jet engines, wheels in front, wheels in back, no wheels, floats...love them all!
 
Henning said:
Not really, pretty under powered and not great fun to fly...
Click to expand...

hmmm, bummer - really sad for one to feel that way about something such as a simple Champ. Why the heck do you fly anyway? Sounds like a chore.
 
Silvaire said:
hmmm, bummer - really sad for one to feel that way about something such as a simple Champ. Why the heck do you fly anyway? Sounds like a chore.
Click to expand...

Transportation and occupation, the view is pretty good too.
 
Henning said:
Well, I also have a couple hundred hours working in those Air Tractors.They aren't comfortable, they don't handle particularly nicely...
Click to expand...

My sole cropduster experience, as stated before, was ferrying Cessna AgTrucks and AgHusky's.

A long time ago, to be sure, but my lasting impression was that they were very comfortable and handled very nicely, with relatively light controls and good control harmony.

My thought was that, being designed to be flown 8 hours a day or more, they had better be comfortable for the pilot, and not high effort on the controls - that would be exhausting - and an exhausted pilot is not a good thing.

But Air Tractors may be a different beast - admittedly I've never flown one.
 
FormerHangie said:
, this is what I've come up with:


Trigear advantages:
Easier to taxi
Click to expand...

Harder to move around on the ground and make tight turns.

Greater ability to handle crosswinds
Click to expand...
Really? You can't wheel land a nosewheel airplane - you are stuck wallowing around at near stall speeds while trying to stay over the runway.

Can use brakes more aggressively if needed.
Click to expand...
Old Wives Tale.

Grabby POS brakes are a problem no matter where the third wheel is. Halfway decent disks work well. I have had no qualms about standing on the brakes in the taildraggers that I have most of my time in.

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.
Click to expand...
Yea, you have to be a hairy chested superman like me to fly a tailwheel. :rofl:

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.
Click to expand...
Even after listing them? Speed, weight, ground handling, etc.? Is snooze-o-matic landing gear really worth the cost just so you can be lazy?
 
Land-o-matic.jpg
 
I see a certain amount of snobbery in the last few posts. There are some people who feel the same way about driving a car with a manual transmission, that it makes them better drivers. I do drive a car with a manual transmission, it's a matter of personal preference, but it doesn't make me a better driver. What makes anyone a superior driver is the willingness to put in the effort to be a superior driver. Same is true of pilots.

If you like tailwheels and want to fly one, that's a good reason to do so. But can we please stop hoodwinking new pilots into feeling inadequate unless they get the conventional gear endorsement? Unless you have the need or desire, most of us are better off with trigear. It's like telling new drivers that they'll never be any good as drivers unless they switch off the stability control and antilock brakes in their cars.

If learning to ground handle a tailwheel aircraft were so important to someone's development as a pilot, wouldn't the air forces of the world include that in their flying curricula? As far as I can tell, none do. If you want to teach pilots stick and rudder skills and energy management, I'd suggest you follow the lead of the US Air Force Academy and get them some instruction in a sailplane. They will certainly teach you to use the rudder pedals, and you will learn to make an approach since that do over option that power pilots have is no longer there.
 
FormerHangie said:
If you want to teach pilots stick and rudder skills and energy management, I'd suggest you follow the lead of the US Air Force Academy and get them some instruction in a sailplane. They will certainly teach you to use the rudder pedals, and you will learn to make an approach since that do over option that power pilots have is no longer there.
Click to expand...

I agree with this totally. Far more relevant skill set than just learning to fly a taildragger. Every Luftwaffe pilot of WWII started in a glider and they turned out many of the best fighter pilots of the war. I'm sure this is where the US Air Force Academy got the idea. Too bad it's such a pain to get glider training. At least in my area it is.
 
FormerHangie said:
I see a certain amount of snobbery in the last few posts....If you like tailwheels and want to fly one, that's a good reason to do so. But can we please stop hoodwinking new pilots into feeling inadequate unless they get the conventional gear endorsement?.... It's like telling new drivers that they'll never be any good as drivers unless they switch off the stability control and antilock brakes in their cars.
Click to expand...


Nobody's telling you that you have to go fly a taildragger, but the general reaction from those that do it after they've learned to fly on a trike is "WOW!" So until you've tried it, you won't understand.

Much of the taildragger's appeal is related to the manual transmission. It's a return to an older, simpler time that only older guys understand. We want our youth back, and wouldn't waste it like we did if we got it back.

Lots of guys like aerobatics. I tried it and said "WOW" and never went back for more. It didn't feed the need for getting into and out of small, rough places. I don't enjoy fairground rides, either.

Drivers who have to drive without antilock do become better drivers. Around here in Canada, the guys in the ditches are all driving the newer vehicles, many of them SUVs and 4x4s, while Grandpa in his 1978 Chevy just motors safely past because he knows he can't speed or tailgate and rely on the brakes when it's icy. Many of the ABS crowd just push the pedal and hope the car will stop itself.



Dan
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
I agree with this totally. Far more relevant skill set than just learning to fly a taildragger. Every Luftwaffe pilot of WWII started in a glider and they turned out many of the best fighter pilots of the war. I'm sure this is where the US Air Force Academy got the idea. Too bad it's such a pain to get glider training. At least in my area it is.
Click to expand...
Williams soaring center is up that way. Over the hill into Tahoe is some of the world's best soaring.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Nobody's telling you that you have to go fly a taildragger, but the general reaction from those that do it after they've learned to fly on a trike is "WOW!" So until you've tried it, you won't understand
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

That was my reaction when I started flying the Super Decathlon a few years ago. Although I'm far from proficient, I found it to be the most fun I've ever had flying. The wheel landings and slips were magnificent and yes it did wake my feet up:lol:
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
Nobody's telling you that you have to go fly a taildragger, but the general reaction from those that do it after they've learned to fly on a trike is "WOW!" So until you've tried it, you won't understand.
Click to expand...
I found getting the TW endorsement meh. Was already a helicopter and sailplane pilot though. As said before if you want to be a better pilot fly sailplanes, if you want to buy a TW airplane get the endorsement.
 
Dav8or said:
You can do slips in any plane, can't you? I've been slipping in trikes for over a decade.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, but prior to that I'd only slipped 172s. The rudder in the Decathlon is bigger which provides a much greater forward slip.

That's not a function of where the little wheel is located, which I'm aware of.
 
You don't want to slip too heavy in a C-180 with full flaps because you can blank out the tail.
 
Henning said:
Same with a 172 with 40° flaps which is what brought about the the infamous placard.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


With those big barn door flaps, you never need to slip much anyway.

The only times I've done it is with no flaps, then when I get to where I want to be, I'll crank them in. :redface:
 
Dav8or said:
You can do slips in any plane, can't you? I've been slipping in trikes for over a decade.
Click to expand...


You can definitely do them in hang gliders and sailplanes. Hang gliders have no glide path control and the higher performance ones have a glide ratio in the upper teens. Slips are used to get them into small fields surrounded by trees. Most sailplanes have spoilers but you can use a slip if needed.

Seems to me that any aircraft with roll and yaw controls would slip just fine. I assume it became sort of a lost art when flaps appeared. In a hang glider you get a slip by rolling the glider and pulling in on the control bar.
 
The 180 is a wonderful airplane . It's got big flaps and when you put them on full it's like someone reached out and grabbed the tail. Very stable, fun to fly and as some said.....if you can get the doors closed, it will take off. Wish I had one. No need to slip it with those flaps.
 
I would say the slips are more a function of flying a plane with no flaps. I learned the heck out of slips on a flapless Citabria. another very useful lesson that I think may not be taught enough lately.
 
FastEddieB said:
Not in a stock Ercoupe, right?
Click to expand...

The latest stock Ercoupes were the Aircoupes, which had factory rudder pedals. Those rudders have little effect, though, and the slips were tame. Even a 172 has more rudder than that, and that's not saying much.

Dan
 
docmirror said:
I would say the slips are more a function of flying a plane with no flaps. I learned the heck out of slips on a flapless Citabria. another very useful lesson that I think may not be taught enough lately.
Click to expand...

Slips are handy on airplanes that glide too well, like the Taylorcraft. The Champ slips well, but slowing it down by raising the nose and getting it to sink works well, too.

When I was instructing we did aggressive (as aggressive as a 172 can get) slips at 40° flap in 172s all the time and never had any trouble. Some of the older models had a porpoising tendency if that was tried, but I never encountered it.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top