Taildraggers - What's the big whoop?

Tell that to pilots having flown the bush in the last 50 years, especially in places like Alaska. Or, for that matter, try ohio bush pilot site.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Tell that to pilots having flown the bush in the last 50 years, especially in places like Alaska. Or, for that matter, try ohio bush pilot site.
Click to expand...

What percentage of TW pilots is that? Did the TW magically bestow those skills on them? How many have died over the last 50 years?
 
Alright I'll grant a point to the failwheel crowd. For recreational, ego boosting, off airport landings failwheels are better. Cause if the videos had trikes in them they wouldn't sell to the 'think they are bushpilots crowd.':D
 
I don't think the CIA, the Army or bush pilots are much into ego boosting. It's all about the application, the terrain, etc. all kinds of various aircraft have crashed in Alaska , the majority due to weather, poor IFR skills and MANY tri gear! One of the most famous pilots in Alaska flew taildraggers. He died of cancer.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why aren't all the bush planes tricycle...or at least better than the 1:100 ratio right now? You are correct that its not a function of where the gear is at...but there is a reason all real bush planes are chosen to be conventional gear. Its not my opinion...its simply what pilots, aircraft manufactures and history has determined / preferred.

And you are not correct about the reduced brake ability. Upon touch down those guys are standing on the brakes to keep the tail up, using full aft elevator and keeping the plane in a near zero angle of attack.

I'm not saying its better braking ability...but it sure isn't reduced. I used to be able to come in with my old 7ECA just as slow as a 3pt would of been, roll it up on the mains, stand on the brakes to keep the tail up all the way to a stop. It stopped fast.

Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0G0HdF3w1Y
 
Henning said:
Sigh, TO/Landing performance is NOT a function of landing gear. :rolleyes2: If you make the Highlander weigh the same as the Katmai.....
Click to expand...

And if you want to get technical, the Highlander comes in at a higher angle of attack than how it sits in the 3pt attitude on the ground. Which means if you make the Katmai as light, powerful, same wing design....you would come in and smash the tail into the ground and wreck the plane. That little wheel in the back is required to be there for those types of landings.

If you make the mains tall enough on the similarly built Katmai / Trike, then it would work...and you would be sitting on top of some majorly tall landing gear.
 
lr60plt said:
And if you want to get technical, the Highlander comes in at a higher angle of attack than how it sits in the 3pt attitude on the ground. Which means if you make the Katmai as light, powerful, same wing design....you would come in and smash the tail into the ground and wreck the plane. That little wheel in the back is required to be there for those types of landings.

If you make the mains tall enough on the similarly built Katmai / Trike, then it would work...and you would be sitting on top of some majorly tall landing gear.
Click to expand...

Why would a skid not serve the same function as the wheel? A tail strike is a tail strike whether the wheel exists or not. Again, it's not a function of where the wheel is. Also since the mains on a Tri are situated further aft, the angle achievable between tail strike and stall is increased.
 
lr60plt said:
Then why aren't all the bush planes tricycle...or at least better than the 1:100 ratio right now?
Click to expand...
Real bush planes are tricycle, 206s, the big Piper singles, Caravans, etc. Those guys in the videos are hobby-bush pilots flying for fun, not work.
 
Silvaire said:
Despite all of the excellent points, pro and con, that have been made it's the taildragger pilots who get the women...
Click to expand...

Well, it is, after all, how Ken landed Barbie!

9133170185_5cb6a98b4b_c.jpg
 
Henning said:
Why would a skid not serve the same function as the wheel? A tail strike is a tail strike whether the wheel exists or not. Again, it's not a function of where the wheel is. Also since the mains on a Tri are situated further aft, the angle achievable between tail strike and stall is increased.
Click to expand...

Ok. You're right. If its down to just smashing the tail / tailskid into the ground being the same as something with rolling, shock absorbing and directional control ability.... then yes, there is no difference. :rolleyes2:

ClimbnSink said:
Real bush planes are tricycle, 206s, the big Piper singles, Caravans, etc. Those guys in the videos are hobby-bush pilots flying for fun, not work.
Click to expand...

Valid point. However all this discussion somehow took a turn to "who can get where"...regardless of whats really going on up there. The working guys aren't going the same places as the hobby guys.
 
FormerHangie said:
A piston engine is not an obsolete technology. It's very cost effective and vastly more fuel efficient than a turbine.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing the piston to a turbine -- I'm comparing it to a Wankel rotary, which has three moving parts, none of which are reciprocating.

When you're not sucking off energy to make parts move, stop, then move the other way, that energy can be used for the stuff you bought an engine to do in the first place.

And if you look at the NTSB incident reports, you see thousands of engine failures due to breaking or bending parts that the Wankel hasn't got.

If anyone wants to fly aircraft with conventional gear, by all means do so. But please stop telling new pilots that they have to get the tailwheel endorsement or they won't be complete pilots.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that you get some experience before you complain about what those of us who know better have to say about the subject.
 
I don't understand why every little thing has to be contentious on this site.

It gets tiresome.

Can we all just agree nosedragger pilots are (insert word for a cute little cats) and move on?
 
Blah, blah, blah. Most of us taildragger pilots can't really justify the need to fly them other than we enjoy the challenge and like doing it. Skiers can't justify the need to slide down slippery hills on a couple of skinny boards, either, nor can the guys who spend many years and many bucks restoring some old car. We just like doing it. Period.

There are always some who can't understand that, just like there are guys who can't understand the fun in car restoration (or pickups, for me) or the fun or challenge in skiing, so they'll diss those things. Meanwhile, the dissers have some other strange pursuits that I neither enjoy nor understand. Star Trek or Xbox or something, maybe, or fourwheeling or dirtbiking. Or bowling or bingo.

You pick what fascinates you and go for it. If others think it's a waste of time or risky, then they don't have to do it and they don't need to feel inferior because they don't do it. But they should also try to understand why we do it instead of trying to convince us that it's archaic or stupid or unnecessary. We already know it's unnecessary most of the time; shoot, we don't even need to fly when it comes right down to it.

One of the big problems in GA is the snobbery that turns off the visitor to the flying club; they go away and take up something else, and we, the flyers, all lose in the end. Taildragger pilots aren't the only snobs in the GA world.

Dan
 
Sheesh, all I said is I think it made me a better pilot, with more skills in my bag for challenging ground ops. I stick by that, and to me, it's not are real big whoop, but maybe a decent sized whoop. It only becomes a big whoop when those skills are needed, and missing.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Skiers can't justify the need to slide down slippery hills on a couple of skinny boards
Click to expand...

Right, and if you want to start a fight, go to a Ski board and start an argument "Ski vs. Snowboard". I think it would kind of be the equivalent of this.
 
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that, on soft or rough terrain, the tailwheel has POSITIVE stability, while the nose wheel does not. Once that wheel is down in the dirt, grass, etc, it tends to drag the nose back toward the front.

My IP had me do a few landings in the Champ on pavement and the 150 on dirt and grass, because each of these is the less desirable combination.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Real bush planes are tricycle, 206s, the big Piper singles, Caravans, etc. Those guys in the videos are hobby-bush pilots flying for fun, not work.
Click to expand...

206 is a fantastic off airport plane. Caravans are really only suitable for improved strips though.

And don't forget planes like the 180 and 185 that continue to be back country workhorses.

So, it's definitely accurate to say that real pilots use trikes back country regularly. It's definitely inaccurate to imply that "real" bush planes are all trikes. A 185 can get into places a 206 can't and places a caravan wouldn't like to use even for an emergency landing.

Oh, forgot about the Pilatus Porter. Now *that's* a bush plane! https://vimeo.com/55589011
 
Last edited:
SoloEqs said:
I'm not comparing the piston to a turbine -- I'm comparing it to a Wankel rotary, which has three moving parts, none of which are reciprocating.

When you're not sucking off energy to make parts move, stop, then move the other way, that energy can be used for the stuff you bought an engine to do in the first place.

And if you look at the NTSB incident reports, you see thousands of engine failures due to breaking or bending parts that the Wankel hasn't got.



I'd suggest that you get some experience before you complain about what those of us who know better have to say about the subject.
Click to expand...

I like the Wankel and have had several Wankel powered cars, they have poor fuel specifics. Outside of that they're pretty good engines as long as you keep up on the wipers.
 
Henning said:
I like the Wankel and have had several Wankel powered cars, they have poor fuel specifics. Outside of that they're pretty good engines as long as you keep up on the wipers.
Click to expand...

They do really well on fuel at a steady RPM, or if you are smooth on the gas pedal -- the problem is that it's just too tempting to feel the acceleration, and that's like opening flood gates! :D

The reliability rate is significantly higher than for recips, and they have a very good power to weight ratio. Not to mention lack of vibration.
 
FastEddieB said:
I don't understand why every little thing has to be contentious on this site.

It gets tiresome.

Can we all just agree nosedragger pilots are (insert word for a cute little cats) and move on?
Click to expand...

It's the middle of winter, and a nasty cold winter storm across most of the country. Nobody can get their flying "fix" in, therefore all that's left to do out of boredom/cabin fever/frustration/whatever, is to argue/complain/thread drift/etc on internet forums.

:D:yes::frown2::sigh::smilewinkgrin:
 
Dan Thomas said:
Blah, blah, blah. Most of us taildragger pilots can't really justify the need to fly them other than we enjoy the challenge and like doing it. Skiers can't justify the need to slide down slippery hills on a couple of skinny boards, either, nor can the guys who spend many years and many bucks restoring some old car. We just like doing it. Period.

There are always some who can't understand that, just like there are guys who can't understand the fun in car restoration (or pickups, for me) or the fun or challenge in skiing, so they'll diss those things. Meanwhile, the dissers have some other strange pursuits that I neither enjoy nor understand. Star Trek or Xbox or something, maybe, or fourwheeling or dirtbiking. Or bowling or bingo.

You pick what fascinates you and go for it. If others think it's a waste of time or risky, then they don't have to do it and they don't need to feel inferior because they don't do it. But they should also try to understand why we do it instead of trying to convince us that it's archaic or stupid or unnecessary. We already know it's unnecessary most of the time; shoot, we don't even need to fly when it comes right down to it.

One of the big problems in GA is the snobbery that turns off the visitor to the flying club; they go away and take up something else, and we, the flyers, all lose in the end. Taildragger pilots aren't the only snobs in the GA world.

Dan
Click to expand...


Nail. Hit squarely on the head.

Excellent post.
 
I hope our backcountry strip where I repaired the freakin' hog damage, heals itself quickly, because I have a taildragger I want put down on it's 2000 foot run. With trees on both ends, and a bowl type of swale in the middle, I would do it in a Katmai, but not a standard 182 with pants or small tires. :nonod:

I'm glad I have beefed up gear, and I will take any negative aspects that go along with that, with a thank you Cessna, Pponk, and God. Spring gear gets you in and out and doesn't break. Last time I checked, everybody likes in and out. ;)

Taildraggers, like blondes, are more fun and go more places. That's why they're a big whoop. :yesnod::tongue::stirpot:
 
Unfortunately I can only afford to fly underpowered airplanes where the most interesting and challenging part of the flight is the landing...so the challenge of mastering a taildragger holds some allure.

In some ways I thought a Citabria was easier to land than a 172 due to being more responsive.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Blah, blah, blah. Most of us taildragger pilots can't really justify the need to fly them other than we enjoy the challenge and like doing it. Skiers can't justify the need to slide down slippery hills on a couple of skinny boards, either, nor can the guys who spend many years and many bucks restoring some old car. We just like doing it. Period.

There are always some who can't understand that, just like there are guys who can't understand the fun in car restoration (or pickups, for me) or the fun or challenge in skiing, so they'll diss those things. Meanwhile, the dissers have some other strange pursuits that I neither enjoy nor understand. Star Trek or Xbox or something, maybe, or fourwheeling or dirtbiking. Or bowling or bingo.

You pick what fascinates you and go for it. If others think it's a waste of time or risky, then they don't have to do it and they don't need to feel inferior because they don't do it. But they should also try to understand why we do it instead of trying to convince us that it's archaic or stupid or unnecessary. We already know it's unnecessary most of the time; shoot, we don't even need to fly when it comes right down to it.

One of the big problems in GA is the snobbery that turns off the visitor to the flying club; they go away and take up something else, and we, the flyers, all lose in the end. Taildragger pilots aren't the only snobs in the GA world.

Dan
Click to expand...


Very well put Dan.
 
Basically, if an airplane doesn't properly stow it's wheels in flight and leaves them hanging in the wind, it's not a real airplane anyway and at that point, doesn't really matter if it's conventional, or a trike. It's just a toy. See example.

9519745-adult-man-in-toy-airplane-on-white-background.jpg


;):D:stirpot:
 
Dav8or said:
Basically, if an airplane doesn't properly stow it's wheels in flight and leaves them hanging in the wind, it's not a real airplane anyway and at that point, doesn't really matter if it's conventional, or a trike. It's just a toy. See example.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you. Getting the mods for my Mooney was difficult, but now that I've got alaska bushwheels for it, that thing can go *anywhere*!
 
Dav8or said:
Basically, if an airplane doesn't properly stow it's wheels in flight and leaves them hanging in the wind, it's not a real airplane anyway and at that point, doesn't really matter if it's conventional, or a trike. It's just a toy. See example.

9519745-adult-man-in-toy-airplane-on-white-background.jpg


;):D:stirpot:
Click to expand...

Which is why real men fly retractable taildraggers. :)

IMG_0192.JPG
 
Try driving your car 60 MPH in reverse, thats what landing a tail dragger is like.
 
Dean said:
Try driving your car 60 MPH in reverse, thats what landing a tail dragger is like.
Click to expand...

It's nowhere near that bad. In the car, the CG is WAY behind the rear wheels when in reverse; in fact, in most cars it will be nearer the front wheels. This would be like having the taildragger's CG three feet ahead of the tailwheel and it would be a nasty, nasty beast. Instead, its CG is only two to three feet behind the mains and is far more controllable than a car in reverse, or a forklift, which is another squirrely animal at speed.

I taught lots of people to fly taildraggers, including teenage girls. In fact, the girls often had a better touch than the guys. This is not the risky or dangerous or difficult thing so many non-taildragger pilots believe it is.

So many OWT and fear of the unknown surrounding this issue, much of it propagated by taildragger pilots themselves.

Dan
 
SoloEqs said:
I'm not comparing the piston to a turbine -- I'm comparing it to a Wankel rotary, which has three moving parts, none of which are reciprocating.
Click to expand...

Oh for pete's sake, no one has solved the materials problems in those things going on thirty years. Even Mazda gave up on them.
 
steingar said:
Oh for pete's sake, no one has solved the materials problems in those things going on thirty years. Even Mazda gave up on them.
Click to expand...

Even if you could solve the sealing problems, the inherent flaw is the shape of the combustion chamber. It has too many corners and way too much surface area relative to its volume. It's a shame, because that's a really pleasant engine to have, it's very smooth and responsive.
 
steingar said:
Oh for pete's sake, no one has solved the materials problems in those things going on thirty years. Even Mazda gave up on them.
Click to expand...

I don't know a whole lot about them but they were making new rotary engines in 2011 rx-8 with a 100,000 mile warranty
 
dell30rb said:
I don't know a whole lot about them but they were making new rotary engines in 2011 rx-8 with a 100,000 mile warranty
Click to expand...

True, I believe they have a great deal of torque for their displacement, which is why Mazda retained them on their sports cars (absent the Miata). That said, they still present significant technical challenges as witnessed by their near universal absence. No conspiracy, they just aren't that good due to problems in their design.

The fact that there is a paucity of diesels in AMerica is due to a cultural problem, one I'd love to see rectified. Diesel technology has made huge strides, they aren't the nasty things of yesteryear.
 
steingar said:
True, I believe they have a great deal of torque for their displacement, which is why Mazda retained them on their sports cars (absent the Miata). That said, they still present significant technical challenges as witnessed by their near universal absence. No conspiracy, they just aren't that good due to problems in their design.

The fact that there is a paucity of diesels in AMerica is due to a cultural problem, one I'd love to see rectified. Diesel technology has made huge strides, they aren't the nasty things of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

For that I blame GM, they soured an entire American generation from Diesels with the Olds 350 that they basically just pulled the ignition system from and replaced it with an injection system and bumped the compression up some to make it run without beefing up the webbing. I remember you could buy a 6 month old fully loaded Delta 88 at the Auction for $1200, buy a 403 gas engine at the junkyard for $500 spend a few days doing the conversion and take it back to the auction the next week and sell it for $4500 or retail it for $6500.
 
dell30rb said:
...they were making new rotary engines in 2011 rx-8 with a 100,000 mile warranty
Click to expand...

Who doesn't have a 100,000 mile warranty these days? Even Hyundai gives you that. Mazda threw in the towel on the Rotary a couple of years ago. Regardless of how much better you may think it is, it's no slam dunk.
 
Henning said:
For that I blame GM, they soured an entire American generation from Diesels with the Olds 350 that they basically just pulled the ignition system from and replaced it with an injection system and bumped the compression up some to make it run without beefing up the webbing. I remember you could buy a 6 month old fully loaded Delta 88 at the Auction for $1200, buy a 403 gas engine at the junkyard for $500 spend a few days doing the conversion and take it back to the auction the next week and sell it for $4500 or retail it for $6500.
Click to expand...

If you look at Diesel popularity in light vehicles the world over, it's mostly in countries where Diesel fuel is taxed less. Countries like the US and Japan where the difference in taxation is minimal, there's not really a cost advantage in driving a Diesel car. For anything heavier than a light truck, Diesels have the advantage everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top