Why you must fly a Taildragger

After I get my family plane, I definitely am thinking of picking up a taildragger for a me plane. :)
 
im not sure he made his point about Asiana...hitting a sea wall is just as bad in a nosedraggers as it is in a taildragger.
 
I'm not sure he made his point about Asiana either. Seeing that you're going to touch down short of the runway is the same in a 172, a Citabria, and a 777. I think the difference is that the 777 needs a little more lead time to make a correction than either a Citabria or a 172.
 
MauleSkinner said:
im not sure he made his point about Asiana...hitting a sea wall is just as bad in a nosedraggers as it is in a taildragger.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. I love tailwheels, but airspeed, attitude and flight path have absolutely nothing to do with the landing gear configuration.
 
MauleSkinner said:
im not sure he made his point about Asiana...hitting a sea wall is just as bad in a nosedraggers as it is in a taildragger.
Click to expand...
I think he was implying that had the pilot(s) had tailwheel skills, they would have been better at managing the "energy" of the plane, instead of just flying it by the numbers.
 
But managing the energy of an airplane on approach doesn't have anything to do with where the gear is positioned.
 
S Joslin said:
I think he was implying that had the pilot(s) had tailwheel skills, they would have been better at managing the "energy" of the plane, instead of just flying it by the numbers.
Click to expand...
A very large number of tailwheel pilots manage energy poorly on approach. It's the pilots who fly into critically short runways who manage energy consistently well...regardless of gear configuration.

And the ASIANA crew certainly wasn't flying the airplane by the numbers.
 
The tailwheel won't make a difference in much of what he claims it will. But older taildraggers often have lots of adverse yaw and are less forgiving of being mishandled; so perhaps he's confusing the wing with the gear here.

One quote is just another repetition of a misconception: Since the typical 3 point tailwheel landing demands that the aircraft be stalled or semi-stalled when touchdown occurs...

Most taildraggers are nowhere near the stall AoA in the three-point attitude. The Citabria sits at 12° AoA--I've measured it--and the stall is around 17°. Any airplane sitting with its wing chord even at 15° would really have its nose in the air. You wouldn't want the wing about to stall in the three-point attitude; what if you had a good crosswind, with the ailerons well over, and were landing at stall angle with the downwind wing's aileron down, which stalls that wing sooner? You'd roll the airplane up in a ball.
 
"The T-6 was easy to fly and was an honest airplane but made you work hard to fly well. The great trainer aircraft were all like that–this was true of the JN-4 Jenny, Stearman, etc."

Without making any comparison aircraft-wise, I can say the same about my old tailwheel Maule, i.e. it was honest but hard to fly well, particularly when landing. If I did 6-8 landings a month, my landings were acceptable. If I did 6-8 landings a week in a variety of wind conditions, they were noticeably better. If I didn't fly it for a few weeks, things could be challenging in tricky crosswind.

Then I had the experience of flying it at least twice a day for 3 months or so. All landings in all conditions became a piece of cake - 3 point, wheelies, xwind 2 pointers, full flaps, no flaps, reflex flaps, steep approaches, short fields, different loadings. Whatever I visualized and desired during landings, takeoffs or any other operation, just happened. Things happened consistently and with more precision than ever before. I guess they call that proficiency and it's a natural outgrowth of practice.

So on the very next day, I test flew my RV-10 and within a few days stopped flying the Maule. For the next year and half I put 200 hours on it and did nothing but grease jobs on every single landing. Not one jolt, bounce, PIO or anything. Four years and 500 hours later it's the easiest to land plane I've ever flown and while most landings are very smooth, I've bounced it once or twice, wrestled with a tricky xwind and maybe flared it twice for a single landing. I've occassionally flown it every day for a week at a time and can still see the difference daily flying makes but....

... I'll never be as good on the stick and rudder as I was with the Maule no matter how much I fly the '10. It's just too nice and easy. But I feel like that Maule time will always stay with me to certain extent and will always make me a better lander of aircraft.

The tailwheel configuration is inferior to the nosewheel. It is intrinsically unstable when rolling on the ground and requires more yaw awareness and control than the nosewheel configuration. The pitch attitude is overly critical during landings and takeoffs. Successful crosswind operations require a higher level of proficiency with all controls than similar nosewheel planes.

Tailwheel training (take offs and landings) will make you a better pilot, so get it if you can. Nosewheels, well balanced controls and reliable engines are better than what came before and there's no reason anyone should have to fly anything with less... unless you just want to be a bit better.
 
Tailwheel does have it's advantages, for off airport work, for some speed benefits, ground handling, personally I prefer tailwheels in major crosswinds, that said I learned to fly in a tailwheel.
 
Some taildraggers are popular for many reasons. Being a taildragger isn't usually at the top of the list. My interest is in STOL utility and that favors a jackscrew trim and manual flaps which favors Cubs and Skywagons. There's nothing wrong with a 182 or 206 but I prefer features that the others provide. The place having a tailwheel really shines is on skis.
 
I fly a nosedragger and a taildragger regularly and they're only different when the wheels are touching the ground.
 
Bill Watson said:
The tailwheel configuration is inferior to the nosewheel.
Click to expand...

Only from a stability standpoint. There are lots of practical reasons to configure a tailwheel over a nosegear. The tailwheel config is simpler, lighter, more rugged, easier to build, aerodynamically cleaner, and gets the nose higher off the ground for airplanes with long props. There's a reason Sukhois don't have nosewheels.
 
Prop clearance is measured with the airplane leveled, isn't it? It has been on my planes whether adding a seaplane prop to a nose dragger or when taking a Cub off big tires and going to skis.

On my 180 I saw equal speed loss when adding a big tailwheel as when adding 29" mains. That was a surprise.

The ability to drop the plane on the ground and stand on the brakes with no fear of flipping it would be pretty nice on some occasions.
 
What is different with tailwheels is the need to use the rudder a LOT MORE on landing rollout. Start pushing on the rudders, right, left, right, left on short final and keep doing that all the way to shutdown. The other difference is there are two kinds of landings in a tail wheel, three point and wheel. Tailwheel config airplane is slightly faster due to the tailwheel being smaller than a nosewheel--less drag. You will notice that almost all aerobatic planes and race planes are tailwheel. But the biggest difference is every landing is a challenge, every landing scares the pilot a little, even when you are good at it. That rear end is trying to come around to the front. Super pilot saves the day! Ah, another successful landing. Puts a grin on your face. In a nose wheel its ho hum, another landing. Thats my take after some 3600 landings in tailweels. Carry on!
 
Bingo. Transitioning is simple for a nosedragger pilot who was taught to land and keep the airplane straight. Short ops with swirling winds will get your attention but they should have your attention in a nosedragger, too. I haven't flown a nose wheeler in 20 years so I'm no authority.
 
Try taxiing a nosewheel through soft mud and see how far you get. Then do it with a taildragger; no big deal. And when landing a trike on a soft surface, there's a real risk of noseover as that nosewheel comes down and the weight comes onto it, forcing it in and adding drag; it just snowballs from there and the airplane pole-vaults over.
 
Not in my world. I flew a nosedragger with big tires before I switched for the ski advantage. Friends still fly nosedragger Cessnas into places most Cub drivers won't go. It's all about equipping for the mission. Most off-airport nosedraggers around here use a Landes fork and 850 tire up front. Works great.

Try powering a skinny tailwheel through muddy gravel and say goodbye to your prop. There's a good reason my 180 has a big tailwheel and big mains. Reduced rolling resistance on soft surfaces. A $1700 tailwheel mod ain't cheap but it's better than dinging up a $15K prop.
 
coloradobluesky said:
What is different with tailwheels is the need to use the rudder a LOT MORE on landing rollout. Start pushing on the rudders, right, left, right, left on short final and keep doing that all the way to shutdown. The other difference is there are two kinds of landings in a tail wheel, three point and wheel. Tailwheel config airplane is slightly faster due to the tailwheel being smaller than a nosewheel--less drag. You will notice that almost all aerobatic planes and race planes are tailwheel. But the biggest difference is every landing is a challenge, every landing scares the pilot a little, even when you are good at it. That rear end is trying to come around to the front. Super pilot saves the day! Ah, another successful landing. Puts a grin on your face. In a nose wheel its ho hum, another landing. Thats my take after some 3600 landings in tailweels. Carry on!
Click to expand...

The "dancing on the rudder" or "happy feet" thing is something folks who were not taught properly do, ideally you shouldn't be dancing on the rudder, remember ever action and a equal and opposite reaction, if you're jamming a foot full of right rudder in, you're going to have to catch that with left rudder, if you're over ruddering the plane around you're just making more work for yourself, and maybe turning the pax in the back green.

Landings also should not be scaring you, well after you learn to fly tailwheel and get some hours.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
The "dancing on the rudder" or "happy feet" thing is something folks who were not taught properly do, ideally you shouldn't be dancing on the rudder, remember ever action and a equal and opposite reaction, if you're jamming a foot full of right rudder in, you're going to have to catch that with left rudder, if you're over ruddering the plane around you're just making more work for yourself, and maybe turning the pax in the back green.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on the plane you're flying. In the Luscombe I'm not dancing on the pedals until the plane is on the runway, transitioning from rudder authority to tailwheel authority for directional control. That's when I've noted the greatest instability. Course I still have under 100 hours in the old girl. I seem to recall the Champ required less footwork. It's main gear are wider spaced than the Luscombe's.
 
I can agree with much of what the author says but, as with all things "tailwheel" these days it's just a tad overblown. For training purposes the 150 made a lot of sense. You could be a bit sloppy without cracking the thing up but a decent instructor and examiner were still going to demand precision from you. If you were a decent pilot you could transition to a Cub and be good to go in a few hours - no big deal. This from someone who learned in a Cub and who currently owns two taildraggers. I love them but honestly there are great pilots who've maybe never flown a tailwheel. It's not the end all, be all.
 
I think this rudder flapping "dancing feet" stuff is mostly a way for tailwheel instructors to get transitioning trike pilots to wake up and move their feet with some dexterity. It doesn't mean tailwheel airplanes require a bunch of rudder flapping, despite the tales that get told. The better you get, the LESS you need to move your feet. My Pitts S-1S is by FAR the most unstable, sensitive tailwheel airplane I've flown, but even it can go significant portions of the landing roll with virtually no rudder movement in smooth air if you get it going straight and leave it alone until it slows to a point where it starts to wander. But it takes almost nothing to upset it just enough to require some constant corrections. All the other tailwheel airplanes I've flown - Cubs, Champs, Citabria/Decathlons, Acro Sport I, T-Craft, Stearman (on grass), Giles 202, Swift, RV-3/6, Husky, Pitts S-2C could go virtually the entire landing roll with nearly imperceptible rudder movements in smooth air, if you get in on straight and mostly leave it alone, using a very light touch. Some of these are no joke just about like landing a 172 compared to my Pitts. I've done lots of Cub landings on pavement where I swear my feet never moved, and the airplane kept tracking dead straight. It's like balancing a pole - with some practice you can balance it with nearly zero movement. If you're clumsy, or let it get off center, you're going to be making some larger corrections to bring it back. Most tailwheel airplanes are very friendly and easy to handle if you've developed the ability to mostly leave them alone on the rollout - assuming they don't have gear alignment issues. I've seen lots of pilots who constantly flap the rudder on rollout whether the airplane needs it or not. I don't think they realize the airplane doesn't really need that much help.
 
You don't want your feet to be TOO happy. Remember this crash where the FO's happy feet doing full deflection rudder moves when encountering wake turbulence caused the vertical stabilizer to snap off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

I also hate that term "happy feet" for taildraggers. The correct way to describe it is to be responsive and quick on the rudder pedals but this doesn't mean flapping it around just because you're in a taildragger...
 
Everyone should experience a too-fast landing and experience the free filling integrity check you get from the resulting tailwheel shimmy! My favorite was directly in front of three Alaska Airlines 737s that had to hold so they could watch me land on a 10,000' runway after a minor accident closed Lake Hood strip. Those pilots got a good laugh that day.
 
N659HB said:
I think that depends on the plane you're flying. In the Luscombe I'm not dancing on the pedals until the plane is on the runway, transitioning from rudder authority to tailwheel authority for directional control.
Click to expand...
But I'll bet when you are 'dancing' on the pedals it is in response to aircraft movement, not dancing on the pedals while still on final like some do to 'wake up' their feet.
 
"Modern trainers such as the Cessna 150, Cherokee and Cessna 172 are all too easy to fly and they do not penalize the pilot who does not fly them well."

This right here. This is the problem today.
 
This tailwheel nostalgic fanaticism is tired. We had to delay our departure this Easter weekend for the airport to handle a ground loop accident (totaled, no fatalities thank God) while we went on our way on my commoner nose dragger.

For a mission set that doesn't require unprepared surfaces and prop clearance a nose wheel is easier to ground handle, taxi and land. That simplicity and ease is a desirable quality to my recreational flying. Suggesting I need helicopter skillset proficiency or tailwheel proficiency (I lack both) in order to be successful and competent in my professional and personal flying is just a tired canard. Stop projecting your bias and preferences as baseline prescriptions for what constitutes skill and safety in other people's flying.

I find tailwheel landing and ground handling/taxi impractical and cumbersome for what I seek out of flying. That's the narrow scope of my opinion on them, I have no interest in critiquing their value on missions outside mine. It does strike me that it's the tailwheel pilots more than the nose wheel pilots that have a tendency to insist on highlighting the superiority required to attain the same outcome. I don't deny that, I simply suggest doing things harder is not a desirable trait in my life. There are practical reasons why airplanes went to majority nose wheel, and taildragger fans need to just get over that reality without always having to pump up their chest. The world doesn't care.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But I'll bet when you are 'dancing' on the pedals it is in response to aircraft movement, not dancing on the pedals while still on final like some do to 'wake up' their feet.
Click to expand...

Unless you start dancing on the rudder on final, in which case you're setting up some tail wagging before you are even over the runway and a possible interesting landing.
 
hindsight2020 said:
This tailwheel nostalgic fanaticism is tired. We had to delay our departure this Easter weekend for the airport to handle a ground loop accident (totaled, no fatalities thank God) while we went on our way on my commoner nose dragger.

For a mission set that doesn't require unprepared surfaces and prop clearance a nose wheel is easier to ground handle, taxi and land. That simplicity and ease is a desirable quality to my recreational flying. Suggesting I need helicopter skillset proficiency or tailwheel proficiency (I lack both) in order to be successful and competent in my professional and personal flying is just a tired canard. Stop projecting your bias and preferences as baseline prescriptions for what constitutes skill and safety in other people's flying.

I find tailwheel landing and ground handling/taxi impractical and cumbersome for what I seek out of flying. That's the narrow scope of my opinion on them, I have no interest in critiquing their value on missions outside mine. It does strike me that it's the tailwheel pilots more than the nose wheel pilots that have a tendency to insist on highlighting the superiority required to attain the same outcome. I don't deny that, I simply suggest doing things harder is not a desirable trait in my life. There are practical reasons why airplanes went to majority nose wheel, and taildragger fans need to just get over that reality without always having to pump up their chest. The world doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.

It's like the whole 4.0 GPA thing, frankly who cares, as long as you pass and get your degree why bother spending the effort, ya only need to be as good as the mins to get in the door.
 
Cheers to striving for mediocrity!

200w.gif
 
bikert said:
You don't want your feet to be TOO happy. Remember this crash where the FO's happy feet doing full deflection rudder moves when encountering wake turbulence caused the vertical stabilizer to snap off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

I also hate that term "happy feet" for taildraggers. The correct way to describe it is to be responsive and quick on the rudder pedals but this doesn't mean flapping it around just because you're in a taildragger...
Click to expand...


Happy feet aren't going to bust the tail off a light taildragger. But they will wear out the hinges and linkages a lot sooner.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
"Modern trainers such as the Cessna 150, Cherokee and Cessna 172 are all too easy to fly and they do not penalize the pilot who does not fly them well."

This right here. This is the problem today.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if the airplane doesn't penalize the pilot...as long as the instructor does his job.

The problem is too many pilots just don't think it's important to fly in a manner that doesn't beat up the airplane...it's both emotionally and physically painful when you have to just grit your teeth and watch somebody bend the nose strut of a Hawker on a crosswind landing.:(
 
Fearless Tower said:
But I'll bet when you are 'dancing' on the pedals it is in response to aircraft movement, not dancing on the pedals while still on final like some do to 'wake up' their feet.
Click to expand...
I do a fair amount of rudder flapping taxiing my tricycle '10 around the home 'port. Keeping it straight at slow speeds on rough grass either requires constant brake taps or rudder flapping since there's no nosewheel steering. I do hold full up on all the rougher parts to keep weight off the nose gear. Keeping the skid marks to a minimum when the grass is mud is appreciated by management. It's good to not beat up the plane or the 'port.

None of that flapping is required on hard surfaces but it's either full rudder application or differential brakings in the wind. A bit of wind awareness and anticipation with the pedals will keep the brake applications to a minimum. It's all a game for former butt-draggers since brakes are cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top