Taildraggers - What's the big whoop?

Dan Thomas said:
Large turbines are MORE efficient than any piston engines. Think airliners. Small turbines like those in helicopters and King Airs are less efficient.
Click to expand...

Here's a listing of specific fuel consumption by engine type. Even the largest, most efficient airline turboprop uses more fuel per output than does the least efficint Otto cycle engine, and vastly more than what a large diesel uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

Dan Thomas said:
Isn't that a picture of you and a hang glider in your avatar? I started hang gliding in the early '70s and nearly killed myself twice, so I learned to fly real airplanes instead. I own and fly a taildragger and a big chunk of my time is in taildraggers and I used to teach it at a flight school. We didn't pay any more for insurance on those airplanes than we did for the trikes, either. The fact is that they are NOT the scary item so many pilots think they are. I was also an aircraft mechanic at that flight school and we had far more issues with nosegear wear and tear from sloppy landings than we did with any taildragger hardware. Trike pilots break airplanes, too, and of the six accidents we had in the 19 years I was there, four were trikes being sloppily handled. Two were on a Champ: one noseover (just onto the prop) caused by taxiing too fast downwind and then trying to stop and turn at the same time, a technique that also nearly broke a Cessna 150; they don't like that either. The other was a crosswind landing for a student that hadn't been cleared to fly in crosswinds. That one was an administrative error and he shouldn't have been alone in the airplane at any time until he'd mastered all of it. His mistake was to neutralize the ailerons right after touchdown, and the wind lifted the wing, dragged the other wingtip, and it turned OUT of the wind. That exact same thing happens to trikes, too.

Please go pay for an introductory flight in a taildragger. There are way too many guys who criticize and dismiss what they haven't tried.

Dan
Click to expand...

Comparing a modern hang glider to one built in the 70's is like comparing a Curtiss Jenny to a 172. The gliders you flew in the 70's had a fatal flaw: if the airspeed got too high, the glider could not be brought out of the dive. This was corrected by adding a reflex bridle that kept the trailing edge up in a dive. Gliders from about 1990 on are a huge improvement over the earlier models.

I'm not currently flying. I intend to get back in the air in a sailplane when my daughters are off to college, but that will be a few years. I found that I enjoyed motorless flight so much more than powered flight that I stopped flying power planes.
 
Last edited:
FormerHangie said:
I was. The hang gliding community is very small, and all fatal accidents get reported to the USHPGA. During the seven years I flew and followed hangliding, approximately in in every 2500 pilots died per year in the USA. I did a comparison to GA in general and came up with a very similar figure

Where are your statistics?
Click to expand...

Accident stats are accidents per hours flown, not accidents per pilot. Hang gliders spend a relatively small amount of time in the air per year.

General aviation stats track all accidents. You say that only fatal accidents get reported to USHPGA. How many guys are crippled but not killed?

Dan
 
FormerHangie said:
Here's a listing of specific fuel consumption by engine type. Even the largest, most efficient airline turboprop uses more fuel per output than does the least efficint Otto cycle engine, and vastly more than what a large diesel uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
Click to expand...


Look at that chart in that link. The Otto cycle gasoline engines, the ones we use in airplanes, have BSFCs of 273-227 grams per kilowatt-hour. The Rolls Royce marine Trent, the marine verison of a very popular large airliner turbine, has a BSFC of 210 g/kW-h.

Most jet turbines publish their SFCs in pounds per thrust rather than per HP, making it more difficult to see that they're better than piston engines, but they are. Really.

Look at the number for the GE LM6000, an industrial turbine of 54,610 hp and derived from the CF6 aircraft turbofan. 199 g/kW-h.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Look at that chart in that link. The Otto cycle gasoline engines, the ones we use in airplanes, have BSFCs of 273-227 grams per kilowatt-hour. The Rolls Royce marine Trent, the marine verison of a very popular large airliner turbine, has a BSFC of 210 g/kW-h.

Most jet turbines publish their SFCs in pounds per thrust rather than per HP, making it more difficult to see that they're better than piston engines, but they are. Really.

Look at the number for the GE LM6000, an industrial turbine of 54,610 hp and derived from the CF6 aircraft turbofan. 199 g/kW-h.

Dan
Click to expand...

When I can afford a $15MM engine for my plane, I'll get one of those.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Accident stats are accidents per hours flown, not accidents per pilot. Hang gliders spend a relatively small amount of time in the air per year.

General aviation stats track all accidents. You say that only fatal accidents get reported to USHPGA. How many guys are crippled but not killed?

Dan
Click to expand...

Per hours flown is valid for transportation flying. If you are taking up a hobby, your concern is how likely that hobby is to kill you, and per participant per year is valid.

I can think of lots of valid reasons to fly a taildragger: You fly off of a soft surface runway, you fly a classic airplane, you enjoy the challenge, etc. What I don't get are attitudes like this guy has: http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/08/why-you-must-fly-a-taildragger/

This goes along with the idea that pilots are lazy and must be whipped into shape by an aircraft that will bite them. He also goes along with the fallacy that flying a tailwheel aircraft will teach you more about adverse yaw. Flying an aircraft that has a lot of adverse yaw will teach you about adverse yaw, where the third wheel is doesn't matter. Just because your aircraft won't hit you over the head with adverse yaw doesn't mean you can't learn to center the ball. And if he's really interested in teaching energy management, go motorless.

When I was a kid my absolute favorite airplane was the J-3. As I've gotten older I've found that I have less and less patience for old technology. Someone asked me if I'd like to own a classic car. I said no. He asked me why not. I said it's because I like driving better than working on cars, and that the new ones drive so much better. I love going to car shows and museums and seeing the old cars, but I'd rather not have to deal with one myself. If I were going to get back into powered flight, I'd choose the airplane that wants to track straight down the runway, not the one that's wanting to swap ends.

As it is, the sailplane's I will be flying are kinda sorta conventional gear.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Look at that chart in that link. The Otto cycle gasoline engines, the ones we use in airplanes, have BSFCs of 273-227 grams per kilowatt-hour. The Rolls Royce marine Trent, the marine verison of a very popular large airliner turbine, has a BSFC of 210 g/kW-h.

Most jet turbines publish their SFCs in pounds per thrust rather than per HP, making it more difficult to see that they're better than piston engines, but they are. Really.

Look at the number for the GE LM6000, an industrial turbine of 54,610 hp and derived from the CF6 aircraft turbofan. 199 g/kW-h.

Dan
Click to expand...

Larger engines are always more efficient, look at the ship diesels. Wouldn't care to try to install one in a Silverado, though.

For any airplane smaller than a trunk airliner, the piston engine is considerably more efficient.
 
Tailwheel sailplanes are more tailwheel then tailwheel airplanes. All the energy and directional management, while balanced on the main(just one,) slip angle limited by long wings, and none of that sissy go round option.
Have fun.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Tailwheel sailplanes are more tailwheel then tailwheel airplanes. All the energy and directional management, while balanced on the main(just one,) slip angle limited by long wings, and none of that sissy go round option.
Click to expand...

Not really. Glider main wheels are real close to the CG. They really don't want to swap ends very badly. They're much more stable than TW airplanes on the ground. This "balancing" on one wheel act you speak of really takes nothing. The long wings make gliders super stable on one wheel.
 
There was a great story about why everyone should get a tailwheel checkout in AirFacts journal. It presents the argument better than I ever could. Read it here: http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/08/why-you-must-fly-a-taildragger/

I've flown a bunch of planes, but the Maule I currently fly is the most fun of any of them, including the Pitts S2A I owned years ago. Landing on back country strips and camping, or just hiking for the day can't be beat!
why-you-must-fly-a-taildragger
 
Last edited:
Hilarious. Tailwheel-indentifying-pilots have fragile egos.
 
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. I like to have photographic evidence to prove how good my landings are.

I'd still poke them.
Click to expand...
It's not vanity, it's capitalism. She gets paid by the ads eveytime you watch one of her videos.
 
RoscoeT said:
I was simply commenting on a completely inaccurate statement. I should not have responded to the troll.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Long wings do not add stability, especially with a single wheel. Those long wings are a nice lever to send you round if you drag one or otherwise let one get out of shape. Nothing wrong with failwheel airplanes but they seem to have funny pilots.
 
Henning said:
When I can afford a $15MM engine for my plane, I'll get one of those.
Click to expand...

Turbine performance is good at altitude, but the BSFC goes WAY up at the lower altitudes GA aircraft fly at. The probability of climbing into the flight levels for a 60 nm flight to a favorite lunch spot are pretty remote. Piston engines are much more efficient at the <5,500 agl altitudes most of us fly at.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You are wrong. Long wings do not add stability, especially with a single wheel. Those long wings are a nice lever to send you round if you drag one or otherwise let one get out of shape.
Click to expand...

Whoa, it'll go around if you drag a wing? Good to know I can get a way with that in powered planes. ;) And as mentioned, glider main wheels are a just about on the CG. Not sure if you understand the dynamics of CG location relative to the main wheels, but gliders handle very differently from tailwheel airplanes on the ground. Gliders are more stable. Somehow you think all this is someone trying to say that tailwheels required more hair on the chest than gliders or something. You're completely wrong. You're just saying inaccurate things, and I'm just responding. Not sure if you're inexperienced enough with tailwheel airplanes to not know the difference, or maybe you do, and you're just being your usual troll posting self. I think the latter.
 
Taildraggers can go anywhere trikes go and can do anything a trike can do. A trike cannot go anywhere a taildragger can go. If you've limited your flying life to long, paved runways then the more user friendly landing characteristics of trikes may be all you ever need. Sadly, imposing that limitation on your flying means cheating yourself out of some of the most exciting and satisfying experience flying has to offer.

In addition, the polish that landing on very small, unpaved strips puts on your flying skills can pay huge dividends if you ever have to do an emergency landing. Go check out the backcountry pilot's website or their video links on YouTube to see what you are missing. Adding a taildragger endorsement to your logbooks can open a new range of pilot experiences that will expand your flying horizons more than you can imagine if you've never flown one!
 
FormerHangie said:
Per hours flown is valid for transportation flying. If you are taking up a hobby, your concern is how likely that hobby is to kill you, and per participant per year is valid.

I can think of lots of valid reasons to fly a taildragger: You fly off of a soft surface runway, you fly a classic airplane, you enjoy the challenge, etc. What I don't get are attitudes like this guy has: http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/08/why-you-must-fly-a-taildragger/

This goes along with the idea that pilots are lazy and must be whipped into shape by an aircraft that will bite them. He also goes along with the fallacy that flying a tailwheel aircraft will teach you more about adverse yaw. Flying an aircraft that has a lot of adverse yaw will teach you about adverse yaw, where the third wheel is doesn't matter. Just because your aircraft won't hit you over the head with adverse yaw doesn't mean you can't learn to center the ball. And if he's really interested in teaching energy management, go motorless.

When I was a kid my absolute favorite airplane was the J-3. As I've gotten older I've found that I have less and less patience for old technology. Someone asked me if I'd like to own a classic car. I said no. He asked me why not. I said it's because I like driving better than working on cars, and that the new ones drive so much better. I love going to car shows and museums and seeing the old cars, but I'd rather not have to deal with one myself. If I were going to get back into powered flight, I'd choose the airplane that wants to track straight down the runway, not the one that's wanting to swap ends.

As it is, the sailplane's I will be flying are kinda sorta conventional gear.
Click to expand...

Flying a taildragger doesn't mean flying old technology. I fly a 2002 Maule MX7-180 that is fully IFR equipped with a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS, dual VORs with glideslope and ADSB in. I fly it IFR to paved runways on business trips when schedule is important to me. I also fly it to backcountry strips with no road access for camping and mountain biking on weekends and vacations. I've added great options to my flying life without giving up anything. My feet are a lot more active when landing in crosswinds than they ever were when I flew trikes, but that is OK. I like flying, so being more engaged on short final and rollout is not a bad thing in my mind.
 
FormerHangie said:
Actually, you're wrong about the safety. On a per pilot per year basis, hang gliders have a somewhat better safety record than does general aviation overall.

Also, when something was invented isn't indicative of whether or not it is an anachronism. The wheel predates history, but it still seems pretty useful to me.

I shouldn't say that conventional gear is obsolete, I can think of at least two types of flying where it's preferred: ag planes and unlimited aerobatic planes.
Click to expand...

I was one of the earliest hang glider pilots. I flew a "bamboo butterfly" in 1972 - bamboo, 6 mil polyethylene and duct tape. I went through a series of hang gliders over the years, both homebuilt and commercial models. My last HG was a Moyes Extra light that I flew in competitions in the eartly 1990s. While coming in for a landing in turbulent conditions in Albuquerque in 1996, I was caught by a dust devil when about 15 feet off of the ground and was tumbled. The glider was destroyed and my right arm was shattered. There was nothing I could do to avoid the accident when the dust devil popped up right in front of me. With the low wing loading and no structure to protect me, there was also nothing I could do to prevent or even mitigate injury to myself. That lack of safety margin ended my hang gliding except in very stable conditions like evening glass-off.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's inaccurate.
Click to expand...

No, he's right. It may not make a big practical difference, but there is no way to put alaskan bush wheels on a trike and get to some of the places a conventional gear plane can go. Might be only 5-10% of places, but it is a factually correct statement.
 
rwellner98 said:
No, he's right. It may not make a big practical difference, but there is no way to put alaskan bush wheels on a trike and get to some of the places a conventional gear plane can go. Might be only 5-10% of places, but it is a factually correct statement.
Click to expand...

I'd take one of these and go anywhere you go in that Maule.

http://www.katmai-260se.com/
 
Henning said:
Exactly, and I've seen Caribous work off 'strips' that would flip your Maule on its nose. Gear configuration has noting to do with capability.
Click to expand...

Look, you like trikes, that's fine. And there are certainly some very capable ones out there. Have a blast with them. A katmai is a very capable plane, but to say gear has nothing to do with it is, to put it kindly, an exaggeration. You are comparing a 280K katmai to a 50K maule and saying that they are the same. I think your statement about being able to operate out of strips that would flip a maule is incorrect, but even if I accepted that we're still talking about a very expensive highly customized aircraft to an off the shelf aircraft. If we're going to compare apples and oranges, we might as well have noted that an Osprey can not only get in and out of places that a Maule can't, but can dramatically out-lift it as well. That surely proves that trikes can do even more than tail wheel planes once and for all.
 
rwellner98 said:
Look, you like trikes, that's fine. And there are certainly some very capable ones out there. Have a blast with them. A katmai is a very capable plane, but to say gear has nothing to do with it is, to put it kindly, an exaggeration. You are comparing a 280K katmai to a 50K maule and saying that they are the same. I think your statement about being able to operate out of strips that would flip a maule is incorrect, but even if I accepted that we're still talking about a very expensive highly customized aircraft to an off the shelf aircraft. If we're going to compare apples and oranges, we might as well have noted that an Osprey can not only get in and out of places that a Maule can't, but can dramatically out-lift it as well. That surely proves that trikes can do even more than tail wheel planes once and for all.
Click to expand...

I don't care where the third wheel is, I don't see it making a big difference. My point quoted in the OP is that having a tail wheel does NOT make you a better pilot. There is 4 seconds in every flight where 'tail wheel skills' come into effect. What makes one a better pilot is their thought process, not landing process. Many tail wheel pilots die in CFIT accidents every year because they did not give proper consideration to environmental issues.
 
Henning said:
I don't care where the third wheel is, I don't see it making a big difference. My point quoted in the OP is that having a tail wheel does NOT make you a better pilot. There is 4 seconds in every flight where 'tail wheel skills' come into effect.
Click to expand...

Yes, but NOT knowing when those four seconds are going to occur is what makes it interesting...:)

Ron Wanttaja
 
Despite all of the excellent points, pro and con, that have been made it's the taildragger pilots who get the women...

895247-bigthumbnail.jpg


Aeronca+Champ+7-AC.jpg
 
lr60plt said:
That Katmai will never do this:


Just Aircraft SuperSTOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn2bDyeIsHk

Or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6B8-PNYjzk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv5BtJMKamM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN0Pm0m8pZ4
Click to expand...


Sigh, TO/Landing performance is NOT a function of landing gear. :rolleyes2: If you make the Highlander weigh the same as the Katmai, or give it the same speed ability, it will likely require a longer landing due to reduced ability to brake.

If you don't know what makes a plane do what, THAT is what determines a poor pilot, not whether one can land with a tail wheel.
 
There are some capable trikes out there. The Katmai and Zenith 701 or 801 with big tires are 2 fine examples. When the LZ is strewn with big rocks, or very uneven terrain a nosewheel plane can't get going the way a taildragger can. The combination of resistance so far ahead of the CG and lower prop clearance places some strips out of a tricycle gear aircraft's capability. Here's some examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13NubUmsBXk
 
The CIA sure liked Maules and had a lot of em not to mention heilo couriers! , beavers, don't remember them using bonanzas in back country operations. If you have a lot of hours in taildraggers, the argument is a little silly. It depends on what the job is. You hit a decent rock with the nose wheel of what looks to be a rans and it will fold up like a cheap suit, prop strike, etc.
 
Last edited:
OK, I hadn't considered the Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. I give up, a trike can do anything a TW aircraft can given enough money, and enough vertical thrust. And, to be honest, the Zenith flown by a capable pilot can go anywhere I will ever fly. But my plane in the hands of the right pilot could go places the Zenith couldn't. This weekend I will be visiting some moderate grass strips that most planes (trikes or taildraggers) without tight wheel fairings could operate out of. I hope to see a lot of my fellow pilots out there, whatever you fly.
 
The osprey was and is a disaster! Imagine trying to land that Wurlitzer under fire! Tremendous amounts of money have been thrown into lipstick for this pig. ( the U2 is a taildragger on landing but there again, a very specific job. It is not a WW2 aircraft.)
 
Last edited:
The capabilities of the plane do not make a better pilot. Most pilots never get close to exploring the capabilities of their plane because fearing the edges of the envelope because they don't KNOW how to operate there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top