what is the advantage of a tailwheel plane?

steingar said:
I made the comment about a 170 vs. a 172 simply to point out that the tail wheel itself doesn't do anything magical for the aircraft's handling characteristics. It just so happens that many tailwheel aircraft are two-seat trainers made in the shadow of WWII that do I imagine handle quite a bit differently from most modern airplanes.
Click to expand...
Can you explain those differences? I'd like to know.
 
yakdriver said:
I usually keep to the right of centerline as I can see the line out of the corner of my eye and catch any drift immediately. As you can see none of these airplanes have any forward visibility. Don
Click to expand...

I guess you have never flown a C-170.
 
I have lots of time in a C-170 and well over 2000hrs tailwheel in over 50 different types. Haven't bent one yet. On a narrow runway I stay in the middle but on wide runways just helps to catch the drift immediately. Don
 
Tom-D said:
I guess you have never flown a C-170.
Click to expand...

He was talking about the airplanes in the video. I'm pretty sure he and most of the rest of us are aware that there are tailwheel airplanes in existence that have forward visibility...sissified as they may be. :)
 
RoscoeT said:
He was talking about the airplanes in the video. I'm pretty he's aware that there are tailwheel airplanes in existence that have forward visibility.
Click to expand...

I still look out to the sides in everything I fly. I can gauge height and drift easier. Just something that works well for me. Don
 
JHW said:
if you need 1000ft to land this probably isnt your conversation. My light twin lands shorter than that.
Click to expand...

Heh. Now there's a conversation starter! :D

My hangar faces the active runway at Mustang Beach Airport, in Port Aransas, TX, so I see all sorts of landings. We almost always have a stiff, smooth, linear breeze off the ocean at 10 - 15 knots.

This wind means you can land extremely short here. During transition training to the RV-8A, I never failed to make the first turn, which is at the 1000' mark. Most times I had to add power to make it.

Despite the almost ideal short field conditions, I see an amazing number of go-arounds and many extremely long landings. We've got 3600' to play with, and accommodate Citations and King Airs, yet I see Mooney's and Bonanzas using 2/3rds of the runway to land, or going around?

I see these guys screaming down final, and just shake my head. If they look fast coming into that stiff headwind, imagine what their airspeed must be?

Heck, we watched a Skylane go around Sunday. The guy couldn't squeeze a high-wing Cessna onto 3/5ths of a mile of runway. It was hilarious, sad, and a bit scary, too.

He made it on his second attempt, but used it all.

How could anyone possibly have such poor airspeed control, and be a certificated pilot? Are they age-impaired? Does their plane have an inop airspeed indicator? I simply have no idea how this can happen, yet I see it regularly.

From my comfy chair I usually can't tell if they stayed on the centerline. :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
Heh. Now there's a conversation starter! :D

My hangar faces the active runway at Mustang Beach Airport, in Port Aransas, TX, so I see all sorts of landings. We almost always have a stiff, smooth, linear breeze off the ocean at 10 - 15 knots.

This wind means you can land extremely short here. During transition training to the RV-8A, I never failed to make the first turn, which is at the 1000' mark. Most times I had to add power to make it.

Despite the almost ideal short field conditions, I see an amazing number of go-arounds and many extremely long landings. We've got 3600' to play with, and accommodate Citations and King Airs, yet I see Mooney's and Bonanzas using 2/3rds of the runway to land, or going around?

I see these guys screaming down final, and just shake my head. If they look fast coming into that stiff headwind, imagine what their airspeed must be?

Heck, we watched a Skylane go around Sunday. The guy couldn't squeeze a high-wing Cessna onto 3/5ths of a mile of runway. It was hilarious, sad, and a bit scary, too.

He made it on his second attempt, but used it all.

How could anyone possibly have such poor airspeed control, and be a certificated pilot? Are they age-impaired? Does their plane have an inop airspeed indicator? I simply have no idea how this can happen, yet I see it regularly.

From my comfy chair I usually can't tell if they stayed on the centerline. :D
Click to expand...
with your new-to-you castering nosewheel you should experiment with taking full advantake of the runway width on takeoffs. there is nothing magic about that line painted down the middle.
 
Jay, is your hotel virtually on the airport, or is that chair at your hangar?

Jay Honeck said:
Heh. Now there's a conversation starter! :D

My hangar faces the active runway at Mustang Beach Airport, in Port Aransas, TX, so I see all sorts of landings. We almost always have a stiff, smooth, linear breeze off the ocean at 10 - 15 knots.

This wind means you can land extremely short here. During transition training to the RV-8A, I never failed to make the first turn, which is at the 1000' mark. Most times I had to add power to make it.

Despite the almost ideal short field conditions, I see an amazing number of go-arounds and many extremely long landings. We've got 3600' to play with, and accommodate Citations and King Airs, yet I see Mooney's and Bonanzas using 2/3rds of the runway to land, or going around?

I see these guys screaming down final, and just shake my head. If they look fast coming into that stiff headwind, imagine what their airspeed must be?

Heck, we watched a Skylane go around Sunday. The guy couldn't squeeze a high-wing Cessna onto 3/5ths of a mile of runway. It was hilarious, sad, and a bit scary, too.

He made it on his second attempt, but used it all.

How could anyone possibly have such poor airspeed control, and be a certificated pilot? Are they age-impaired? Does their plane have an inop airspeed indicator? I simply have no idea how this can happen, yet I see it regularly.

From my comfy chair I usually can't tell if they stayed on the centerline. :D
Click to expand...
 
I have found that nothing makes me feel better about my own landings than sitting at the airport watching other pilots land. Unfortunately, nothing makes me feel worse about my own landings, either. :)

I've watched student pilots land like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, and I've seen an older high-time guy in a 210 loaded with pax porpoise down the runway tho the point where we were sure he was going to need major airframe repairs afterward.
 
Advantages of a tailwheel airplane???

A picture is worth a thousand words :thumbsup:
IMG_7318.JPG
 
denverpilot said:
Paging Kent. Post the photo of your club's 182 sitting in that exact same parking spot. ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that an unimproved strip, by any means. Good enough for golfing, that one. Any trike (besides an airliner) that comes to grief on it would have to be seriously mishandled.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
I wouldn't call that an unimproved strip, by any means. Good enough for golfing, that one. Any trike (besides an airliner) that comes to grief on it would have to be seriously mishandled.

Dan
Click to expand...


A RV ain't a unimproved strip plane by any means, aerobatic sports plane is more a RVs calling in life :)
 
How many nosewheel aircraft get taken regularly to aerobatic competitions?

Ryan
 
Dan Thomas said:
I wouldn't call that an unimproved strip, by any means. Good enough for golfing, that one. Any trike (besides an airliner) that comes to grief on it would have to be seriously mishandled.
Click to expand...

Johnson Creek is smoother turf than many paved runways I've landed on. There were several 172s in and out of there during my stay. Heck, there was even a Traumahawk landed there too while I was there! I also know a fellow who routinely takes his Cherokee there too.
 
RyanShort1 said:
How many nosewheel aircraft get taken regularly to aerobatic competitions?

Ryan
Click to expand...

There are very few trike aerobatic airplanes, of course. Some that I've seen at contests on rare occasion - 152 Aerobat, Yak 52, CJ-6, T-28, Robin R-2160.
 
whifferdill said:
There are very few trike aerobatic airplanes, of course. Some that I've seen at contests on rare occasion - 152 Aerobat, Yak 52, CJ-6, T-28, Robin R-2160.
Click to expand...

Plus the F33C on the air show circuit. Never seen one in a contest though.
 
So is there an actual reason, or is it merely tradition to make aerobatic competition planes with the little wheel on the tail?
 
Jay Honeck said:
So is there an actual reason, or is it merely tradition to make aerobatic competition planes with the little wheel on the tail?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, there is only one airplane that was designed specifically for the purposes of aerobatic competition - Dan Rihn's plans-built One Design DR-107. The "One Design" concept for aerobatic competition never took off for multiple reasons. So there's really no such thing as an "aerobatic competition airplane", just aerobatic airplanes. You can fly any aerobatic airplane in competition (there are competition categories for all types of planes).

Most aerobatic airplanes are tailwheel airplanes. Part of the reason is legacy, part of the reason is the fact that tailwheel gear is mechanically simpler, cleaner, and lighter...oh and looks a whole helluva lot better. :) Acro planes are sporty, and trike gear just isn't very. Most aerobatic airplanes are very simple airplanes - especially the homebuilts. Tailwheel gear is a natural fit. And some acro planes swing very large props (Sukhoi), which TW gear is better for. Think of most of the TC'd aerobatic airplanes - Citabrias, Decathlons, and Pitts...legacy 1940's designs from an era when tailwheels were the standard.

There's just no good reason to design dedicated aerobatic airplanes with tricycle gear. Plus, acro pilots are likely more "adventurous" anyway, and surely are not going to be put off by the tiny bit of extra training it takes to learn tailwheel. You're likely gonna be flying a tailwheel anyway if you get any aerobatic training. And can you imagine any self-respecting pilot buying an Extra 300 with tricycle gear? :D
 
Last edited:
whifferdill said:
And can you imagine any self-respecting pilot buying an Extra 300 with tricycle gear? :D
Click to expand...

Yes, actually. In fact, I mildly disagree with just about everything you wrote about trike-gear planes.

I actually prefer the look of my RV-8A to the -8. And I think the 182 is just as handsome (or whatever you might call an inherently butt-ugly, high-wing design) as a 180.

I think you're expressing personal preference rather than any logical reason for aerobatic planes to be tailwheel birds. I love all airplanes, no matter where the steerable wheel is mounted,

BTW: My personal favorite warbird is the trike-geared P-38 Lightning. :D
 
But during your swoon over the RV you said you wanted the taildragger and Mary wanted side-by-side so you both gave in on something to end up with the 8-A. Which is it?

Jay Honeck said:
Yes, actually. In fact, I mildly disagree with just about everything you wrote about trike-gear planes.

I actually prefer the look of my RV-8A to the -8. And I think the 182 is just as handsome (or whatever you might call an inherently butt-ugly, high-wing design) as a 180.

I think you're expressing personal preference rather than any logical reason for aerobatic planes to be tailwheel birds. I love all airplanes, no matter where the steerable wheel is mounted,

BTW: My personal favorite warbird is the trike-geared P-38 Lightning. :D
Click to expand...
 
Dan Thomas said:
I wouldn't call that an unimproved strip, by any means. Good enough for golfing, that one. Any trike (besides an airliner) that comes to grief on it would have to be seriously mishandled.

Dan
Click to expand...

I suppose "seriously mishandled" would be a fitting description...

0036.jpg


0037.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
I think you're expressing personal preference rather than any logical reason for aerobatic planes to be tailwheel birds.
Click to expand...

Yes, aesthetics is a preference thing, but there ARE logical reasons. If there weren't, then we'd see a lot more trike acro planes. I'm sure Chris Panzl, Walter Extra, and Aviat (Pitts) would be completely open to your suggestion to make trike models. :D

It's a fact that tailwheel gear is lighter, aerodynamically cleaner, mechanically simpler, and easier to build. You need no reinforcing structure on the firewall, nor the complexity of the nosewheel arrangement (either castering or steerable). Look at all the plans-built designs out there. The vast majority are tailwheels. Simplicity.
 
Primary advantage: The women can't resist tailwheel pilots.
 
wabower said:
But during your swoon over the RV you said you wanted the taildragger and Mary wanted side-by-side so you both gave in on something to end up with the 8-A. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Yep, I wanted the taildragger version because I wanted the challenge. Mary wanted no part of that, saying that learning to fly such a different creature was challenge enough.

So...I gave in. Compromise keeps everyone happy, and my lower insurance bill is reward enough.

That said, I think our nosewheel RV-8A is the best looking RV I've ever seen. :D

Here's Mary, taken yesterday -- on the 15th anniversary of her first solo flight. Truly "independence day"!

yheruhu2.jpg
 
Last edited:
whifferdill said:
Yes, aesthetics is a preference thing, but there ARE logical reasons. If there weren't, then we'd see a lot more trike acro planes. I'm sure Chris Panzl, Walter Extra, and Aviat (Pitts) would be completely open to your suggestion to make trike models. :D

It's a fact that tailwheel gear is lighter, aerodynamically cleaner, mechanically simpler, and easier to build. You need no reinforcing structure on the firewall, nor the complexity of the nosewheel arrangement (either castering or steerable). Look at all the plans-built designs out there. The vast majority are tailwheels. Simplicity.
Click to expand...

True, and I suppose the extra weight hanging under the nose might adversely effect the more violent gyroscopic maneuvers.

Or, I suppose, it might enhance them, if you knew how to make use of that weight? Dunno.

Still, for the mild sort of "gentlemen's aerobatics" the RVs were made to perform, it makes no difference. This is evident by the fact that there are several A-models (nose wheels) in the RV aerobatic team. If there was a measurable difference, they wouldn't be there.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Still, for the mild sort of "gentlemen's aerobatics" the RVs were made to perform, it makes no difference. This is evident by the fact that there are several A-models (nose wheels) in the RV aerobatic team. If there was a measurable difference, they wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make much difference for RVs. According to Vans, the nosegear adds 16 lbs and costs 2 MPH. But RVs are very low on the performance spectrum when you consider the range of aerobatic airplanes available. But you'd have sure as heck never convinced MX, Zivko, or Extra that a trike design would be inconsequential for their airplanes at the very top of the performance food chain. Here, pounds, and the slightest bit of extra drag matters.
 
whifferdill said:
No, it doesn't make much difference for RVs. According to Vans, the nosegear adds 16 lbs and costs 2 MPH. But RVs are very low on the performance spectrum when you consider the range of aerobatic airplanes available. But you'd have sure as heck never convinced MX, Zivko, or Extra that a trike design would be inconsequential for their airplanes at the very top of the performance food chain. Here, pounds, and the slightest bit of extra drag matters.
Click to expand...

Makes sense! When ounces matter, the lightest design wins.
 
jesse said:
Primary advantage: The women can't resist tailwheel pilots.
Click to expand...

As I am almost complete in my Tailwheel endorsement course, I am glad my wife does not belong to this forum. ;)

Cheers
 
dell30rb said:
This cracks me up. That plane was not crashed, it was parked. Note the sun-shield in the windscreen.
Click to expand...

I know, that is kind of hilarious that after completely wiping out he'd take the time to worry about UV damage to the upholstery. :rolleyes2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top