The tail wheel design was an engineering error

The tail wheel design was an engineering error.

  • Agree?

    Votes: 17 16.8%

  • Disagree?

    Votes: 84 83.2%
  • Total voters
    101
Nosewheel could be considered an engineering error too, at it tends to encourage complacency during the landing process.
 
The CIA, ( for instance) was enamoured of the maule and the heilo courrier during the Vietnam war. They had lots of them. This was long after the sissy wheel went on the front. It all depends on the application. I learned in a taildragger and always liked them as they are much more versatile and more of a challenge to fly.
 
Hank S said:
And here I thought the most efficient airplanes today are all retractable nose wheel aircraft. :goofy: (Gliders excepted, we're discussing planes that can self-launch and don't require a whole different certificate to fly.)
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone can't swagger while chewing gum.

And some self launch gliders retain the tailwheel.
 
Velocity173 said:
The Apache isn't based on a 60 year old design. It's a fairly modern tail wheel design and can actually taxi backwards. :D
Click to expand...

So do you think I'll get a deal on insurance for my TD Sonex if I include my 2000+ hours of "tailwheel" time?
 
Direct C51 said:
So do you think I'll get a deal on insurance for my TD Sonex if I include my 2000+ hours of "tailwheel" time?
Click to expand...
It is honestly worth asking.

I knew a H-60 guy who bought a 310 and his insurance company gave him ME credit for all of his helo time.
 
Direct C51 said:
So do you think I'll get a deal on insurance for my TD Sonex if I include my 2000+ hours of "tailwheel" time?
Click to expand...

You can only claim those hours that you operated with the tail pin unlocked.:wink2:
 
The military airfield of yesteryear-

4426155828_b7a079467e.jpg


The military airfield of today-

tumblr_inline_myomp3Y8b31rwb97v.jpg


What's changed?

The tail dragger was not an engineering error. It was the best design for the technology of the time. For the vast majority of aviation today, it no longer is. In certain niche areas of aviation, it is still the best solution. The "real man pilot" is not one of those niches.
 
Both designs have their application. With the availability of improved runways, those applications that are airport based make better use of tricycle gear.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The CIA, ( for instance) was enamoured of the maule and the heilo courrier during the Vietnam war. They had lots of them. This was long after the sissy wheel went on the front. It all depends on the application. I learned in a taildragger and always liked them as they are much more versatile and more of a challenge to fly.
Click to expand...
I didn't find anything challenging about flying the bolen 150, over any other 150. Or the 170 over the 172.

To answe the OP; I think the tailwheel design was well engineered, to allow for prop clearance on non paved strips, which was what they had back in the day.
 
Last edited:
bluerooster said:
To answe the OP; I think the tailwheel design was well engineered, to allow for prop clearance on non paved strips, which was what they had back in the day.
Click to expand...

Prop clearance was only part of it, but an important one for unimproved strips. I seldom have to dress nicks out of a taildragger's prop, but trike props are forever getting dinged by loose debris. The prop's vortex sucks up whatever is within 18 inches of it.

The other reason for the taildragger's appeal on soft strips is its ability to get on and off without nosing over. The gear is close under the CG, so the pole-vaulting effect that the trike's nosewheel presents isn't there. The ONLY time I ever got stuck on a soft surface was in a 150; there were taildraggers that had already taxiied through that same spot without any hassle at all.

Taildraggers can nose over, for sure, but the idea that the trike is more resistant to it is one of those mistaken intuitions held by some trike pilots.

Dan
 
cgrab said:
The elevator is more of an engineering mistake than the tailwheel. A canard will compensate for the pitch moment created by the wing and add to the overall lift.
Click to expand...

That's why birds have canards, right?
 
Direct C51 said:
So do you think I'll get a deal on insurance for my TD Sonex if I include my 2000+ hours of "tailwheel" time?
Click to expand...

Seriously though, I don't claim TW time on my annual renewal. RW would have little to do with FW. I think I claim ME but I believe there is a separate RW block for that. Once again, RW would have little relevance to FW for insurance purposes...IMO.

Seeing how I fly single engine trikes only, the added hours probably wouldn't reduce my premiums anyway.
 
bluerooster said:
I didn't find anything challenging about flying the bolen 150, over any other 150. Or the 170 over the 172.

To answe the OP; I think the tailwheel design was well engineered, to allow for prop clearance on non paved strips, which was what they had back in the day.
Click to expand...

Then it's time you tried a Stearman or a cessna 195 in a good crosswind. Much different from anything you mention. A taildragger simply evolved into a trike which is Easier to fly, better runways came into being, sales were beginning to taper off and the manufacturers tried anything they could think of. The er coupe was a typical example. You could never take a stock 170 ( underpowered) or a 172 where many pilots go with a 180 or a 185 which still bring top dollar compared to anything you've mentioned. .
 
Last edited:
My wife says that starting this thread was the aviation equivalent of rolling a hand grenade into a church...

...on Easter Sunday.

:)
 
cgrab said:
I don't think planes could use canards if they had to eat where the canard would be. Planes don't emulate irds, they are powered kites.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of ornithopters that have flown though.
 
Back in the 20's and 30's aircraft landing fields were just that, fields, you lined up with the sock and landed into the wind, no such thing as a cross wind landing.

Along came air transportation, that must happen where the people are, (cities) where land was expensive, Thus the airport where the aircraft must do cross wind landings, these so called airports is where a lot of pilots learned to fly, hours cost money, it took a lot longer to learn in conventional gear, so by using nose geared aircraft like the C-150 you could solo in 5-6 hours, so why would you want a conventional gear?
So as result there were a lot of pilots with out the added time/training flying around in the nose gear, with a lot of old cheap taildraggers setting on the back line of every aircraft sales office. You guessed it, the accident rate went up, That's when the FAA declared the taildragger pilots get extra training and an endorsement.
 
Don't forget that the evolution of airplanes came from biplanes and triplanes as well. Monoplanes are better suited to nose dragging but it took time for technology to adapt.
 
Each gear configuration has its place. Choose the best one for you. The B-52 box design seems to be a good hybrid ;-)
 
coloradobluesky said:
Jay. How would you know? You don't know how to fly one!
Click to expand...

Sez you! :lol:

I've got time in a Cub, a DC-3, a Howard DGA, a Stearman, and a Travel Air. Which doesn't mean didly squat, cuz I don't have the tailwheel endorsement, nor do I need it.

BTW: The newest plane in that group was built ten years before I was born, and I was born in 1958.

Honestly, I don't care what anyone flies. Tailwheel planes are cool, wonderful old things, like '57 Chevies and steam locomotives -- both of which I also love.
 
Tom-D said:
Back in the 20's and 30's aircraft landing fields were just that, fields, you lined up with the sock and landed into the wind, no such thing as a cross wind landing.

Along came air transportation, that must happen where the people are, (cities) where land was expensive, Thus the airport where the aircraft must do cross wind landings, these so called airports is where a lot of pilots learned to fly, hours cost money, it took a lot longer to learn in conventional gear, so by using nose geared aircraft like the C-150 you could solo in 5-6 hours, so why would you want a conventional gear?
So as result there were a lot of pilots with out the added time/training flying around in the nose gear, with a lot of old cheap taildraggers setting on the back line of every aircraft sales office. You guessed it, the accident rate went up, That's when the FAA declared the taildragger pilots get extra training and an endorsement.
Click to expand...
Again, this is mostly B.S. If you look at the site showing old time airports from the 30s , etc. The vast majority were single landing strips, some with two runways. The airport I learned at was a very old single strip . During WW2 many primary fields were huge circles with the sock in the center for Stearman , cub, etc. Training to speed up the program . Most pilots during this time went into combat with 200 hours or less. During the depression most airports had neither the means or the money to mow a huge circle.
 
bluerooster said:
I didn't find anything challenging about flying the bolen 150, over any other 150. Or the 170 over the 172.
Click to expand...

Keep the original context. He said more of a challenge [than trikes]. Keyword "more". You cannot honestly think tailwheels don't challenge a pilot to maintain control of the airplane more so than tricycle land-o-matics.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Again, this is mostly B.S. If you look at the site showing old time airports from the 30s , etc. The vast majority were single landing strips, some with two runways. The airport I learned at was a very old single strip . During WW2 many primary fields were huge circles with the sock in the center for Stearman , cub, etc. Training to speed up the program . Most pilots during this time went into combat with 200 hours or less. During the depression most airports had neither the means or the money to mow a huge circle.
Click to expand...

I didn't see you there when this was happening Jimmy.
 
mkosmo said:
Each gear configuration has its place. Choose the best one for you. The B-52 box design seems to be a good hybrid ;-)
Click to expand...

Plus, there is no need to correct for crosswinds! :)
 
coloradobluesky said:
Jay, don't take my comment seriously. I'm just f'n with ya
Click to expand...
No worries, friend! Nothing I've posted in this thread should be taken seriously, as I love taildraggers...

And nosedraggers. And floatplanes. And, frankly, pretty much everything that flies!
;)
 
I've never owned a trike and shy of something supersonic with a roll rate, there are ZERO trikes that appeal to me.
 
James331 said:
I've never owned a trike and shy of something supersonic with a roll rate, there are ZERO trikes that appeal to me.
Click to expand...

Wheels down you have a quad. Double the training wheels.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top