Taildraggers - What's the big whoop?

Silvaire said:
So wait... all those Porsche's and Audi's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's...you mean to say they are all "derated"? :goofy:
Click to expand...
No, I said that the Renesis would have to be derated to meet the smog standards.

The European standards are based on displacement class, not horsepower. The Renesis displaces 1300cc. Horsepower comes from fuel, fuel creates exhaust, so the only way to meet the standard would be to cut fuel throughput, thus HP.

None of the cars you mentioned gets 200HP per cc of displacement, but if they did, they would also probably have to be derated to meet displacement-class emissions levels.
 
Dav8or said:
In theory you could count that as an advantage, but in practice, the rotary engine doesn't really last any longer, or have less repair issues than a traditional piston engine.
Click to expand...

Then all of mine must have been the exceptions which prove the rule.

And yes, I DO consider it an advantage to not have to worry about bent lifters, broken springs, worn valve guides, burned valves, cracked cylinder heads, etc, while also getting a couple of hundred horsepower from a 100-lb engine that is as smooth-running as a turboprop.
 
SoloEqs said:
No, I said that the Renesis would have to be derated to meet the smog standards.

The European standards are based on displacement class, not horsepower. The Renesis displaces 1300cc. Horsepower comes from fuel, fuel creates exhaust, so the only way to meet the standard would be to cut fuel throughput, thus HP.

None of the cars you mentioned gets 200HP per cc of displacement, but if they did, they would also probably have to be derated to meet displacement-class emissions levels.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any engine get 200hp per cc of displacement. Best I've seen is about .62 on seriously supercharged nitromethane burning engines.;) Not sure how to rate the displacement of a rocket though.
 
I want to say, WTF does any of this have to do with taildraggers? But someone would just get offended, and say "because I'm flying one you jerk!"

So I'm abstaining from the wankel voodoo. :skeptical:

We truly are a weird bunch. :heli::happydance:
 
Henning said:
I haven't seen any engine get 200hp per cc of displacement. Best I've seen is about .62 on seriously supercharged nitromethane burning engines.;) Not sure how to rate the displacement of a rocket though.
Click to expand...

Oops, editing issue. That was supposed to read "200 HP per 1000cc."

The Renesis pumps out 280HP from 1300 cc. Still pretty respectable! ;)
 
SoloEqs said:
Then all of mine must have been the exceptions which prove the rule.

And yes, I DO consider it an advantage to not have to worry about bent lifters, broken springs, worn valve guides, burned valves, cracked cylinder heads, etc, while also getting a couple of hundred horsepower from a 100-lb engine that is as smooth-running as a turboprop.
Click to expand...

What?? I thought we were talking about car engines, not airplane engines?
 
Dean said:
Try driving your car 60 MPH in reverse, thats what landing a tail dragger is like.
Click to expand...

On a Car the steering is setup to go forward. With caster angles and such so going backwards is hard to do. The steering is setup to go forward, has nothing to do with CG in a car. It's steering geometry.

Take a shopping cart and push it backwards. Can you do it sure anyone can. But you have to correct a lot. Most would be all over the isle. Just a very few would go straight and true.
I use a shopping cart because the wheels pivot and you do not get the effects of steering geometry. The ends want to swap on you. Imagine coming in at say 60 mph and the ends of your airplane want to change places on touch down.
Do it once then get back to all the tailwheel pilots.

Tony
 
SoloEqs said:
...(show me another auto engine that gets 200 horsepower per liter of displacement)..
Click to expand...

Ford RS200 got 285hp/liter but really, for a ratio such as hp/liter the rotary should more aptly be compared to 2-cycle engines. A better comparison is how much power does a motor produce from a liter of gasoline. The Wankel ain't gonna win.
 
Silvaire said:
Ford RS200 got 285hp/liter but really, for a ratio such as hp/liter the rotary should more aptly be compared to 2-cycle engines. A better comparison is how much power does a motor produce from a liter of gasoline. The Wankel ain't gonna win.
Click to expand...


Sorry I thought this was about taildraggers...I see its about auto conversions and HP ratings.

My bad....

Tony
 
1600vw said:
Sorry I thought this was about taildraggers...I see its about auto conversions and HP ratings.

My bad....

Tony
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, Wankel designed his engine for aircraft use and it was converted to autos.
 
Henning said:
Interestingly enough, Wankel designed his engine for aircraft use and it was converted to autos.
Click to expand...

Really I did not know this. Why did they stop using it. Major problems? I know very little of this engine and do not believe I have ever seen a one.

Tony
 
1600vw said:
Really I did not know this. Why did they stop using it. Major problems? I know very little of this engine and do not believe I have ever seen a one.

Tony
Click to expand...

Superseded by jet engines. Curtiss Wright had license to build them as well, but I don't know if they ever did. Oh, and they power one of the UAVs.
 
Last edited:
1600vw said:
Sorry I thought this was about taildraggers...I see its about auto conversions and HP ratings.

My bad....

Tony
Click to expand...

If you wish to complain about where the discussion drifts there are appropriate channels for that because your post contains no content related to either taildraggers, auto conversions or HP ratings. Nor does this post of mine.

See what you've started ;)
 
Silvaire said:
If you wish to complain about where the discussion drifts there are appropriate channels for that because your post contains no content related to either taildraggers, auto conversions or HP ratings. Nor does this post of mine.

See what you've started ;)
Click to expand...


I started nothing. I replied about steering geometry and it went this way.
It was already started. But I see you want to be a " Troll "

Tony
 
I don't Tony, I'm just joking. It's hilarious how this thread has drifted. I think it's funny, nothing to get upset about.

Sorry if you didn't get it. I did put a wink in there.

EDIT: BTW, we might take note that the whole thing was started by a guy who's never flown a taildragger to begin with. :goofy:
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had this experience with 40 degrees of flaps on my old C-172. If I couldn't get the speed pegged at 65 mph or less, I could not pull up that last 10 degrees of flaps.

I also found the 180 to be heavy on the rudder. That's why I enjoy flying my light and agile Luscombe.

Deb
 
Silvaire said:
I don't Tony, I'm just joking. It's hilarious how this thread has drifted. I think it's funny, nothing to get upset about.

Sorry if you didn't get it. I did put a wink in there.

EDIT: BTW, we might take note that the whole thing was started by a guy who's never flown a taildragger to begin with. :goofy:
Click to expand...

Sorry I did not get that....

That is why I told him to go fly a tail dragger then get back with those that fly one. He can say he thinks this and he thinks that, but he is all wet.

Tony
 
Jeanie said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

Deb
 
The airplane I fly is a small EAB. and she goes into the air for fun flying. I can only fly in something like this about one hr. So to me I get more " Fun " flying out of my little Tail dragger, for I fly her from hanger to runway and back.

I find it a lot of fun taxing with the tail up. Its a blast and hard, but FUN. From the very first time I flew a tail dragger I knew that was the airplane for me.

You just get more flying for your Hour of flight. Now I can not say more fun, just the fun last longer.

Tony
 
Silvaire said:
EDIT: BTW, we might take note that the whole thing was started by a guy who's never flown a taildragger to begin with. :goofy:
Click to expand...

A friend told me that his mother never believed in bicycles. She couldn't see what held them upright and would not learn to use one. Way too dangerous, she said. It's a good thing most of the rest of us learned to ride, or we'd all still be on tricycles, motorized or otherwise.

There are always a few who, since they haven't done it and aren't interested in doing it, think it's so stupid that nobody else should be doing it either. It was fun introducing students to the Champ or Citabria, to see them get excited when they found that it really was a good thing to wake their feet up and to find that a challenge is seldom a bad thing.

I, now, do not like the ideal of rock climbing. That looks real dangerous to me. But there are those that like it, and they're welcome to it. Far better than sitting around playing checkers while you're still young. Inactivity kills more people than risky sports, I think. Look at the obesity and heart disease and diabetes we have in this society.

Dan
 
Bicycles and diabetes - where are you taking us now Dan? This thread has swerved more off course than a new student landing a J3 in a crosswind :D
 
Silvaire said:
Bicycles and diabetes - where are you taking us now Dan? This thread has swerved more off course than a new student landing a J3 in a crosswind :D
Click to expand...

A bit more and the thread will groundloop.

Dan
 
You guys are ignoring the posters who have flown TWs and are honest enough to admit they are no big whoop.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You guys are ignoring the posters who have flown TWs and are honest enough to admit they are no big whoop.
Click to expand...

Sure, we might be. But some of us have enjoyed TW flying and/or have enjoyed teaching it. To us it's important. To you and some others it's not. Is that a problem to you?

Dan
 
I was hoping that this thread would die out, since I now have the answer to my question and it's getting divisive. But since it won't...

1600vw said:
Sorry I did not get that....

That is why I told him to go fly a tail dragger then get back with those that fly one. He can say he thinks this and he thinks that, but he is all wet.

Tony
Click to expand...

If you'd read the whole thread, you'd see that I don't fly power planes any longer, so I won't be getting my tailwheel endorsement. That's why I asked, I don't have that particular life experience and don't plan to get it.

Dan Thomas said:
A friend told me that his mother never believed in bicycles. She couldn't see what held them upright and would not learn to use one. Way too dangerous, she said. It's a good thing most of the rest of us learned to ride, or we'd all still be on tricycles, motorized or otherwise.

There are always a few who, since they haven't done it and aren't interested in doing it, think it's so stupid that nobody else should be doing it either. It was fun introducing students to the Champ or Citabria, to see them get excited when they found that it really was a good thing to wake their feet up and to find that a challenge is seldom a bad thing.

I, now, do not like the ideal of rock climbing. That looks real dangerous to me. But there are those that like it, and they're welcome to it. Far better than sitting around playing checkers while you're still young. Inactivity kills more people than risky sports, I think. Look at the obesity and heart disease and diabetes we have in this society.

Dan
Click to expand...

I'm getting the impression that there are some here who think I think that flying a taildragger is dumb. Au contraire, and that was not the purpose of my asking the question. The whole thing was started in my mind by the original post in this thread: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67173 in which the poster was looking for a "fast taioldragger" because he heard that "to become a great pilot, you must fly a taildragger". I've been hearing that sort of stuff for the last 40 years, and hadn't really challenged that before, so I thought I'd bring it up. I have no problem with anyone flying their aircraft of choice, but it does bother me that someone has somehow hornswoggled this new pilot into the belief that he needs to fly a taildragger to become a complete pilot. I've done my best to research that contention and found it wanting. This fellow is planning on flying his airplane for business travel, and what he will ultimately need is a fast, IFR equipped single, and its type of undercarriage isn't really important.

If anyone takes offense at my calling conventional gear "obsolete technology", I apologize for the offense, but from what I can tell, except for a few specialized applications, it is obsolete technology. Now, I drive a car with a conventional three pedal manual transmission, which is also rapidly becoming an obsolete technology. I do so because I like it. However, if you ask me if learning to drive a manual transmission car will make you a better driver of an automatic transmission car, my answer is no, that the skills learned in driving a manual transmission are pretty much only applicable to a car so equipped. Shall we say, "What's learned in a manual transmission car stays in a manual transmission car"? From what I can tell, the same is true of a taildragger.

If you enjoy flying (or should I say ground handling, in the air things should be the same for either type of gear) a conventional gear equipped airplane, by all means continue, but please stop telling other pilots that they simply must drop 2 large on a tailwheel endorsement to become complete pilots, if you have been doing so. The evidence just ain't there.
 
FormerHangie said:
I was hoping that this thread would die out, since I now have the answer to my question and it's getting divisive. But since it won't...



If you'd read the whole thread, you'd see that I don't fly power planes any longer, so I won't be getting my tailwheel endorsement. That's why I asked, I don't have that particular life experience and don't plan to get it.



I'm getting the impression that there are some here who think I think that flying a taildragger is dumb. Au contraire, and that was not the purpose of my asking the question. The whole thing was started in my mind by the original post in this thread: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67173 in which the poster was looking for a "fast taioldragger" because he heard that "to become a great pilot, you must fly a taildragger". I've been hearing that sort of stuff for the last 40 years, and hadn't really challenged that before, so I thought I'd bring it up. I have no problem with anyone flying their aircraft of choice, but it does bother me that someone has somehow hornswoggled this new pilot into the belief that he needs to fly a taildragger to become a complete pilot. I've done my best to research that contention and found it wanting. This fellow is planning on flying his airplane for business travel, and what he will ultimately need is a fast, IFR equipped single, and its type of undercarriage isn't really important.

If anyone takes offense at my calling conventional gear "obsolete technology", I apologize for the offense, but from what I can tell, except for a few specialized applications, it is obsolete technology. Now, I drive a car with a conventional three pedal manual transmission, which is also rapidly becoming an obsolete technology. I do so because I like it. However, if you ask me if learning to drive a manual transmission car will make you a better driver of an automatic transmission car, my answer is no, that the skills learned in driving a manual transmission are pretty much only applicable to a car so equipped. Shall we say, "What's learned in a manual transmission car stays in a manual transmission car"? From what I can tell, the same is true of a taildragger.

If you enjoy flying (or should I say ground handling, in the air things should be the same for either type of gear) a conventional gear equipped airplane, by all means continue, but please stop telling other pilots that they simply must drop 2 large on a tailwheel endorsement to become complete pilots, if you have been doing so. The evidence just ain't there.
Click to expand...

Do you have a Tailwheel Endorsement?
(Just in the interest of full disclosure, take it with a grain of salt type thing)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dell30rb said:
Do you have a Tailwheel Endorsement?
(Just in the interest of full disclosure, take it with a grain of salt type thing)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


From the previous post:
If you'd read the whole thread, you'd see that I don't fly power planes any longer, so I won't be getting my tailwheel endorsement. That's why I asked, I don't have that particular life experience and don't plan to get it.
Click to expand...
Is it difficult to read this board with Tapatalk? There was something in one thread about how Tapatalk was increasing the incivility on this board.
 
Others posting in this thread have expertly summed up the "why" for Tailwheel airplanes. Tail wheel planes (esp vans and other experimentals) make up a good percentage of the new GA market. You say tailwheel is obsolete and has nothing to do with being a 'complete' pilot?

If you want to be a more complete pilot and have access to very popular cubs, super cubs, RV's, Citabrias, Decathlons, Pitts, Christen Eagle, Stinsons, Carbon Cubs, Glasairs, Maules, Pilatus, bearhawks... (I could go on) then learn to fly a tailwheel plane.

Same goes for gliders and seaplanes. No one is going to argue that learning to fly these types of aircraft is not going to make you a more complete pilot. You are learning new skills and expanding the number of aircraft you can fly and the utility of your certificate.

Sure I can understand that many pilots have no need or desire to spend the extra hours to learn to fly a tailwheel plane. But I do argue that Tailwheel planes are not obsolete and that learning to fly one does increase your skill set. In both conventional and tricycle gear aircraft.
 
Last edited:
An automatic transmission shifts itself. No clutchwork, no gearshift. Easy.

Both trikes and taildraggers have rudder pedals, and both need to be used to good effect if one is to be a good pilot. Unfortunately, the trike will often let the pilot get lazy feet, and at some point he's going to encounter a stiff crosswind on landing, for instance, and his feet will be reluctant to push as much as they need to. I've seen this too often. In addition, the taildragger's three-point attitude makes that wing want to fly at lower ground roll speeds than the trike in its three-point attitude, and so the pilot must also use aileron intelligently in any crosswind. I've seen way too many ailerons go neutral right after touchdown in a crosswind in trikes, and getting students to understand that the wing is still generating lift, even with the wheels on the ground, can be difficult. In the taildragger, it's obvious and it will start to bite you if you get dumb.

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. The point here is that cars and airplanes are not the same thing at all and you can't make relevant comparisons between manual transmissions and conventional gear. People who keep thinking car=airplane can end up as airplane drivers, not pilots.

As we've said here before, until one tries it he has no idea what's involved and what the benefits might be. It's totally academic to him, not experiential.

Dan
 
and some that have tried tw will admit it is all petty posturing. seems tw flying is all some pilots have to hang their ego on. it ain't much.
 
ClimbnSink said:
and some that have tried tw will admit it is all petty posturing. seems tw flying is all some pilots have to hang their ego on. it ain't much.
Click to expand...

14 pages in this thread, and I haven't seen anyone say anything more controversial than tailwheel flying simply adds a small set of skills via the simple fact that they are different. Oh, and that some people find them enjoyable. Damn these "posturing" people with ego issues. ;) You either have a reading and comprehension problem or are very insecure about your piloting skills. And I don't know who all these "posturing" pilots are. I haven't met any. Your experience with tailwheels is admittedly extremely limited. You are clearly not an authority on the subject, although you obviously feel you are. If you were a tailwheel instructor and had experience transitioning lots of pilots, your eyes may open a little. I don't understand why you feel so threatened by the idea that a tailwheel could possibly benefit a pilot in some small way, or that some simply have fun with them. In the end, tailwheel is a drop in the bucket when it comes to all the ways a pilot can pick up new flying skills. Crap, I think we're going in circles now. I'm out.
 
Last edited:
Oh shucks I've never taught anyone to fly a tw. Have taught fixiemotor pilots to fly helicopters and gliders, good thing you don't need your feet in those. There is nothing super or special about tws and if there is a skill boost from tw flying it is marginal.
 
FormerHangie said:
...but please stop telling other pilots that they simply must drop 2 large on a tailwheel endorsement to become complete pilots, if you have been doing so. The evidence just ain't there.
Click to expand...

If you really think there's nothing to it why do you think it would take two grand to learn how? The "making you a better pilot" thing, that's just a phrase. Does flying to airports in the mountains make you a better pilot? How about getting a seaplane rating or learning advanced maneuvers such as spins or aerobatics? Or how about just learning to fly a different aircraft?

They are all examples of expanding you experience level and they are all examples of "making you a better pilot"

So stop getting so wound up over it. When people say that they are expressing their enthusiasm, not belittling anyone. Not being an active pilot yourself I can't really understand why you would even start this thread. I mean, what's it to you?
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
If you really think there's nothing to it why do you think it would take two grand to learn how? The "making you a better pilot" thing, that's just a phrase. Does flying to airports in the mountains make you a better pilot? How about getting a seaplane rating or learning advanced maneuvers such as spins or aerobatics? Or how about just learning to fly a different aircraft?

They are all examples of expanding you experience level and they are all examples of "making you a better pilot"

So stop getting so wound up over it. When people say that they are expressing their enthusiasm, not belittling anyone. Not being an active pilot yourself I can't really understand why you would even start this thread. I mean, what's it to you?
Click to expand...

Took me 1.3 in a Citabria, a good TW instructor can get it done for far less than 2 large, mine was a former Corsair pilot and T-6 IP. The 2 large is about making money in aviation.
 
Henning said:
Took me 1.3 in a Citabria, a good TW instructor can get it done for far less than 2 large, mine was a former Corsair pilot and T-6 IP. The 2 large is about making money in aviation.
Click to expand...

I don't even have an endorsement. I was 15 years old, it was a J3 Cub and everyone was learning to fly in it.
 
Silvaire said:
I don't even have an endorsement. I was 15 years old, it was a J3 Cub and everyone was learning to fly in it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ain't that tough, people used to solo Jennys, Cubs, and Stearmans in 5hrs from 0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top