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
Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Honeck
"The tail wheel design was an engineering error. And was abandoned by every military and civilian airlines on this planet."

Agree?
 
Considering fixed gear, taildragged a much lighter and more aerodynamic design than tricycle. It was not abandoned by neither civilians nor military. A few modern examples from different types of flying: Maule, Carbon Cub, MXS, & Apache.
 
MachFly said:
Considering fixed gear, taildragged a much lighter and more aerodynamic design than tricycle. It was not abandoned by neither civilians nor military. A few modern examples from different types of flying: Maule, Carbon Cub, MXS, & Apache.
Click to expand...

Maule, Carbon Cub, and Apache are all based on 60-year old designs.

What's an MXS?

Personally, I don't care what anyone flies, but I think the answer to this question is pretty obviously "Yes". A design that is prone to swapping ends (on the ground) because the center of gravity is in the wrong place relative to the landing gear is an error that was corrected with the nosewheel.
 
Oh man, I think this thread could start a war.
 
The nosewheel didn't correct an engineering error, it simply made it possible for folks who can't walk and chew gum at the same time to become pilots. :yes: (and I don't care what anyone flies, either).

Mark
 
Jay Honeck said:
Maule, Carbon Cub, and Apache are all based on 60-year old designs.

What's an MXS?

Personally, I don't care what anyone flies, but I think the answer to this question is pretty obviously "Yes". A design that is prone to swapping ends (on the ground) because the center of gravity is in the wrong place relative to the landing gear is an error that was corrected with the nosewheel.
Click to expand...

Taildraggers are better for short field capability and unpaved runways. It is also the lightest type of gear you can put on an aircraft that is also aerodynamic.

MXS:
a4033499-129-Nigel%20Lamb%20MXS%20Breitling2.jpg

Designed in the 21st century BTW.
 
For the fields available at the time, the tail wheel was the best choice. For operating off of the pavement available nearly everywhere today, the tricycle is better. That is a long ways from making the tailwheel an engineering mistake.
 
I always figured tailwheels were better for rough fields such as they had back in the day so you wouldn't call it an engineering error. Now most airplanes land on pavement or at least on smoother surfaces than in the past.
 
the most efficient airplanes in the world have tailwheels. And tailwheels are so simple, even my 12 year old daughter can fly one.
 

Attachments

  • adelai 1st lesson-2.jpg
    adelai 1st lesson-2.jpg
    126.6 KB · Views: 85
The nose gear was nothing more than a crutch for poor piloting skills.
 
The fastest civil airplane in the world has a tailwheel.
 
The original statement referred to the military and civilian airliners of the current day. Are there any that have a tailwheel?
 
as-advertised

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Land-o-matic.jpg
    Land-o-matic.jpg
    250 KB · Views: 434
Everskyward said:
The original statement referred to the military and civilian airliners of the current day. Are there any that have a tailwheel?
Click to expand...

Actually, he said:

Jay Honeck said:
"abandoned by every military and civilian airlines on this planet."
Click to expand...

And since I wasnt familiar enough with any military airlines to respond...I didn't.

;)

...
 
Everskyward said:
The original statement referred to the military and civilian airliners of the current day. Are there any that have a tailwheel?
Click to expand...

Besides Apache, no. This is because everything these days has jet engines which prefer the use of long paved runways and also allow the space and the weight to carry retractable tricycle gear. So based on this I guess a tail wheel is as much of an engineering error as piston engines are.
 
Wouldn't call it an engineering error, made the most sense at the time. Those rickety early airplanes would have had even shorter lives with a nosewheel. Doesn't make sense most of the time nowadays and tailwheels are appropriately rare.
 
The early airplanes didn't have brakes, just a tail skid to slow them on the ground. :D Early boats were powered by oars and sails, not a mistake, just what was available. ;)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Oh man, I think this thread could start a war.
Click to expand...

*tee hee!* Yes. :goofy:

(I actually stole the idea from a guy over on the Van's RV site, who got tired of the never-ending chest-beating of the taildragger RV pilots. I personally thought it was too hilarious not to share!)
 
N747JB said:
The early airplanes didn't have brakes, just a tail skid to slow them on the ground. :D Early boats were powered by oars and sails, not a mistake, just what was available. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't seen too many people pushing shopping carts backwards. <ducking!>
 
Jay Honeck said:
*tee hee!* Yes. :goofy:

(I actually stole the idea from a guy over on the Van's RV site, who got tired of the never-ending chest-beating of the taildragger RV pilots. I personally thought it was too hilarious not to share!)
Click to expand...

There's two types of pilots in the world. The ones who fly all the hot ships and the pudknockers who only fly nosewheel aircraft. What beer are you bringing to the HOPS party, pudknocker?

;-)
 
Glenn Curtiss started with a nose wheel then fixed it

37-2.jpg


by installing a tail wheel

glenn-h-curtiss-museum.jpg
 
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.
 
JHW said:
the most efficient airplanes in the world have tailwheels. And tailwheels are so simple, even my 12 year old daughter can fly one.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
I always thought the tail wheel was the best thing the technology of the day could produce. The fastest airplanes have tricycle gear that retracts.
 
they each have strengths and weaknesses. Pick the one that serves you best.

Flying conventional gear ain't no thang.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yeah, I'm curious since the official title of fastest civil aircraft is currently held by the Citation X+ and I don't see a tailwheel on it.
Click to expand...

I'd wager a guess he's refering to Rare Bear, but that's just a guess..
 
Copied from Supercub.org....
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    50 KB · Views: 101
Simply go to Ohio bush plane and follow this merry band of back country flyers and you'll see what an absurd arguement this is. Or study Alaskan videos of taildraggers and where they operate.
 
The only thing gayer than tricycle geared planes is pilots that think flying tailwheel airplanes is hard and worthy of an ego boost.
 
The bicycle was an engineering failure. It wasn't until training wheels until people realized the full potential.

?
 
Skis were the reason I switched from nose wheel to taildragger even though my primary mission was float flying. Big tires make Cessna nose draggers very capable for all but very rough Supercub country but on skis taildraggers are king.
 
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
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    920.8 KB · Views: 33
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top