It just took a ride to decide

I got my first rides today in a -6A and -7 (thanks Phil and Keith!). Phil was kind enough to let me taxi, takeoff, fly, and land in his 6A. Keith on the otherhand let me taxi and fly his -7, but takeoff and landing was all him (a good thing, too). It sealed the deal for me, and I'll definitely be ordering a nosewheel for mine! Here are my (110 hr. private pilot) observations...

What a pain to taxi a taildragger! Always 'dancing' on the pedals just to keep it on the taxiway. Can't see where you're going. Wind gusts push you around pretty good too. The -6A was a piece of cake to taxi, nearly identical to the Symphony I took my private checkride in (also had a castering nosewheel).

On takeoff, same deal. Can't see what's on the runway until the tail comes up. Keith was very busy with the rudder the whole time, too..

The landing in the 6A was no problem. I was a little too zealous with the elevator, but for my first landing attempt in a RV, it wasn't too bad. An hour later in the 7, Keith had to really work to get that thing down, and had a couple little bounces, too (keep in mind that this guy is an airline pilot, and has flown his RV for a good number of hours now, too). And he even commented that they are much less forgiving of things like not landing perfectly straight down the runway, etc.

And after flying in both, I can understand why insurance rates are less for the nosedraggers now, too!

All of this adds up to make sure I ask for a third big wheel on my fuselage order form!

Good decision, Zach. But this debate will never end! My neighbor in the adjacent hangar at my airport put a cute little bumper-sticker on his door, facing my door which says, "Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers." Turns out that most of them are hunkered down in their hangars on days when the wind is howling across the runway! Flame suit on!

Good luck!

Jerry Carter
RV-8A
440 hrs
499 ground-loop free landings! (Damn, I should have made one more this morning!)

Come on, me thinks Ye exaggerates a might bit

zsadecki said:

What a pain to taxi a taildragger! Always 'dancing' on the pedals just to keep it on the taxiway.

On takeoff, same deal. Can't see what's on the runway until the tail comes up. Keith was very busy with the rudder the whole time, too..

The landing in the 6A was no problem. I was a little too zealous with the elevator, but for my first landing attempt in a RV, it wasn't too bad.

He even commented that they are much less forgiving of things like not landing perfectly straight down the runway, etc.

And after flying in both, I can understand why insurance rates are less for the nosedraggers now, too!

All of this adds up to make sure I ask for a third big wheel on my fuselage order form!

Click to expand...

Zsadecki congrats I can see your are happy about your decision. I think it is a good choice for a 110 hour pvt who learned in a tricycle airplane. Not a put down but you are exaggerating the difficulty of conventional gear RV's and perpetuating a myth that TG's are hard to fly, I mean taxi, takeoff and land.

Your comments "very busy" (on take off) and "'dancing' on the pedals" (to taxi) are just not bore out in my 800 RV experience.

It is easier to taxi a tail dragger RV than a "A" model on my opinion. It's like driving a car, you can move the steering wheel back and forth or just hold it steady and make small corrections. You can dance on the pedals or hold them still. You have precise steering with a tail dragger. You have NO steering with an "A" model, which is always trying to weather vain into the wind. With a model "A" you will be jabbing your brakes (wearing them out) to go straight since there is nothing keeping it going straight.

A tail wheel has positive steering thru the cables. Look I hardly move my feet to taxi. If the peddels are straight, the tail wheel is straight and guess what, you are going straight. Period


Take off: Again like taxi. I slowly apply anti-left turning controls. You make it sound like a tap dance. Yes some times you make a small correction and take it out; you or your friend may be over controlling and doing way more work than necessary. Again except for real gusty winds I hardly move my feet except for the routine inputs that are done by reflex with out having to think about it.

As far as tail dragger?s and hiding with a cross wind that is just a silly thing for a 110 hour pilot to say. The physics, geometry and control authority gives no advantage to the RV-A, with that swiveling grocery cartwheel wheel hanging out on the end of a long thin spindly bendy springy thing below the cowl. Trust me (or read about all the RV-A landing accidents) you can loose control of ANY RV landing in a slip and without proper control inputs.

I agree there is more technique and a little less forgiving characteristic in a tail dragger. If you are making good smooth constant RV-A landings, nose high attitude (not flat), near stall (near not stall) with the long axis of the plane aligned with the runway which is also the vector of travel, by using the proper control or cross control input for a side slip, than go fly a tail dragger. Than tell me how hard it is. It is the same thing, except as the airspeed bleeds off after touch down , the aircraft rotates forward or aft about the mains until the appropriate 3rd wheel touches. Jab brakes or elegantly steer with your feet. No big deal.

If you have a x-wind you should be landing on ONE (upwind main) wheel and roll out as long as possible on that one wheel, until the ailerons run out and the down wind wheel touches down.

Glad you are happy about your choice, like I said it is a choice and I think a good one for you. As far as insurance I will pay less than you because of time in type, ratings and total time.

Cheers George RV-4/RV-7

off topic Q

George, slightly off-topic, but why are you building a 7 instead of an 8? Coming from the 4, did you just get tired of the excellent visibility?

PS: I enjoy your taildragger posts!

George,

Great post!

I like the -7 for the panel space.

I am dreaming about a panel that will make professional pilots green with envy.



The side by side seating, is preferable to me for instrument work. It gives the pilots the ability to point to and share flight information more easily too.

You can also delegate things like radio and navigation tuning to the other pilot in the side by side, which you cannot do in the centerline configuration.

Taildragger fore sure! Not EVERYONE can fly my plane!

CJ

I chose the taildragger because I wanted some chance of surviving an off airport landing if I had to make one.

Your chance of staying right side up in an "A" model is zero or very close to zero. Your chance of surviving a nose over, appears to also be zero or next to zero.

Tailwheel is easy to fly if you use correct technique. I am only a 400hr pilot with 150 hr tailwheel, but I must say the tailwheel steering is positive and direct and lends excellent control.

I am pretty sure I can get a TW down in winds that most of the nose wheel guys can't simply because I have kept my skills sharp.

Jconard said:

I chose the taildragger because I wanted some chance of surviving an off airport landing if I had to make one.

Your chance of staying right side up in an "A" model is zero or very close to zero. Your chance of surviving a nose over, appears to also be zero or next to zero.

Click to expand...

I know you're quite proud of your flying ability, but WOW, those kind of comments really hurt general aviation. Just keep spreading ignorance like that and we won't have a friend anywhere. The media already loves to run us down.

Quote:

"I know you're quite proud of your flying ability, but WOW, those kind of comments really hurt general aviation. Just keep spreading ignorance like that and we won't have a friend anywhere. The media already loves to run us down."

I am not saying anything about my ability, just that the chance of surviving an off airport landing in a nose gear RV seems pretty low...not ignorance at all if you look at the numbers.

A nose over is a much lower possibility in an off airport landing in a tailwheel. And, the probability of power reduction/failure is not insiginificant...so if I had to make an engine out, off airport landing, I wanted it to be as survivable as possible.

Outcomes should be discussed in terms of probability, not sales effort. Is a trike easier to land...probably. Is it more likely to nose over on grass or off a field..yes of course! One more thing to consider.

Jconard said:

Quote:

A nose over is a much lower possibility in an off airport landing in a tailwheel.

Click to expand...

Sure..................... If you leave the wheel pants off! Weeds and mud will do a great job of locking up the wheels, & over you go! I've seen one for myself, that did just that.

L.Adamson

This thread was meant to be a fun, non serious bantering of nosegear VS tailwheel opinions. Both are great and both can be misused. Both are beautiful, afterall, they are RVs!! Please!!! No bloodshed. Keep it fun.

Roberta

robertahegy said:

This thread was meant to be a fun, non serious bantering of nosegear VS tailwheel opinions. Both are great and both can be misused. Both are beautiful, afterall, they are RVs!! Please!!! No bloodshed. Keep it fun.

Roberta

Click to expand...

And so right you are!!!

That "4" with the retracts is the best looking of all!

L.Adamson

Jconard said:

I chose the taildragger because I wanted some chance of surviving an off airport landing if I had to make one.

Your chance of staying right side up in an "A" model is zero or very close to zero. Your chance of surviving a nose over, appears to also be zero or next to zero.

Click to expand...

I'm still deciding 9/9A--trying really hard to decide because I need to order my fuse. kit within the next month--but take issue with the above generalization.

I have searched the NTSB databases extensively on this question. I have found that, indeed, nosewheels are more likely to nose over (at least proportionately they seem more likely to do so). However, there is nothing to indicate in the NTSB reports that fatalities or serious injuries are happening in significant and disproportionate numbers in these cases. Moreover, on what basis would one determine whether one's chance of staying upright in an -A model is "zero or close to zero"? I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. If people are not flipping, and not publicly declaring an emergency, there's not necessarily any reason to report this to the NTSB or make it into the accident database. The statement could be true, but I'd be interested where there is statistically valid numbers to back it up. I stand willing to be corrected, but these are my observations.

One thing to factor in for 9/9a builders, because of the significantly lower landing speed, it seems reasonably that the likelihood of flipping a nosewheel -9 would be significantly less as well. Just food for thought.

I agree both nosewheel and tailwheel have their value. Nonetheless, given lower insurance rates for nosewheels (pilot experience equal), I highly doubt flying a nosewheel RV is less "safe". Insurance actuaries know what they are doing and price their policies accordingly.

No hostilities intended, just adding my .02 because I'm very much in need of making this decision soon and so I've thought about it a great deal.

Best to everyone else making this decision. For others who've already decided, I'm happy with the choices they made if it makes them happy.

Steve

"I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. "

Why are you sure of that?

I believe the chance is zero or near zero based on the three fatalities in the last 2 years, and because none of the nose gear guys around here will fly to grass strips.

Just as there are positives to having the CG in front of the mains, when you screw up a landing and the plane will self correct in the longitudinal axis, it also means that weight easily transfers to the front wheel. As the weight transfers, the plane gets closer to nosing over, until it finally does.

With the head clearance, roll structure, and seat belts of an RV, you do not want to be on your head.

When it comes to landing off field, or on somewhat rough fields, there is a reason for the overwhelming use of conventional gear aircraft in bush operations

Jconard said:

"I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. "

Why are you sure of that?

I believe the chance is zero or near zero based on the three fatalities in the last 2 years, and because none of the nose gear guys around here will fly to grass strips.

Just as there are positives to having the CG in front of the mains, when you screw up a landing and the plane will self correct in the longitudinal axis, it also means that weight easily transfers to the front wheel. As the weight transfers, the plane gets closer to nosing over, until it finally does.

With the head clearance, roll structure, and seat belts of an RV, you do not want to be on your head.

When it comes to landing off field, or on somewhat rough fields, there is a reason for the overwhelming use of conventional gear aircraft in bush operations

Click to expand...

"Nose wheel" guy's/gal's certainly DO use grass strips for RV's........................ a lot!

You'll see "few" RV's with missing wheel pants and tundra tires....................... for "bush" operations.

Bush flying, isn't the normal RV mission period. I'd prefer an Aviat Huskey for that, which is on my wish list for a second aircraft.

L.Adamson RV6A (paint)

I decided on a 9-A mostly for resale value. I think the plane will sell quicker being a nose wheel. I knew I was going to build a 9 of some variation but insurance rates also helped me make up my mind. I'm hoping there will be a bigger market for a 9A than a tail dragger when it comes time to sell. I am already thinking about being a repeat offender. The tail dragger sure looks nicer to me on the ground though.
Jim Wright 90919 wings.

Jconard said:

"I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. "

Why are you sure of that?

Just as there are positives to having the CG in front of the mains, when you screw up a landing and the plane will self correct in the longitudinal axis, it also means that weight easily transfers to the front wheel. As the weight transfers, the plane gets closer to nosing over, until it finally does.

Click to expand...

Just for sake of argument (and of course, argument is what this whole thread is about ), I'm pretty sure that it is very possible that some number of emergency landings have not made it into the accident database because the NTSB isn't under any mandate to investigate aircraft that involve only Experimental aircraft.

As far as off-field landings and nosing over, I really don't think either configuration has an advantage (note that I'm referring to unintended off-field landings, not simply landing on grass runways).
For example, you might imagine that an 'A model landing in a freshly plowed soft field, or a very rough rocky field, might catch on soft dirt or hard rock and put it over the nose. However, tailwheel aircraft would easily experience the same problem when it's main wheels dig in hard in the dirt, or hit some rocks. There's even less up front to keep a tailwheel aircraft from going over in those same circumstances.

I've seen LOT's of 'A models at grass strip fly-in's so I think the argument changes if you're talking about regular runways (hard or soft) and nasty off-field emergency landings.

Ok, someone else's turn.

Does anyone really think this discusion has changed or will change anyone's mind? Well, it may change a few that require someone elses opinion for every decision made.
My RV-6 feeds my emotional concept of what a good airplane is. That ain't gonna change, pard. It does require me to do a good job, but a hairy chested tail dragger it isn't. If you're looking in that class of airplanes, try a Cessna 195, Beech 18 or a T-6. They are all just airplanes and mere mortals do fly them without accidents.
Just a side note, No insurance company's opinion has ever decided a single buying decision in my life, and after nearly 50 years of flying, that's not about to change.

Bob S

Highflight said:

... I'm pretty sure that it is very possible that some number of emergency landings have not made it into the accident database because the NTSB isn't under any mandate to investigate aircraft that involve only Experimental aircraft.

Click to expand...

That's a big understatement! Do off-field landings that don't involve damage to property or injury even need to be reported? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Hypothetical: If I'm flying along in my BurgerCatcher 100 and the engine craps out over a nice flat Texas road, I'm putting her down, and calling Sam with his tool box and flat bed tow truck to come git me. I doubt it would even occur to me to call some feds.

hngrflyr said:

Does anyone really think this discusion has changed or will change anyone's mind? Well, it may change a few that require someone elses opinion for every decision made.

Click to expand...

For a newbie like me it is very interesting to read actually. For instance an experienced pilot will post a detailed description in favour of configuration X that will convince me configuration Y is what I should go for, simply because many posters are very good at describing their situation->solution decisions.

Of course it might end up a bit childish with posters more interested in justifying their own decision, but from experience elsewhere on other topics, this forum has very good debate standards. And I am sure it helps many along to a proper train of thought towards any decision, be it primer, avionics, config or the dreaded "RayBan or AO" riddle.

Sidenote, perhaps of interest to some, I recently joined EAA Norway and one of the board members told me there was little insurance difference between tail/nose configs over here. Perhaps because there isn't room for more digits in the rate box as it is?

rv9aviator said:

I decided on a 9-A mostly for resale value. I think the plane will sell quicker being a nose wheel. I knew I was going to build a 9 of some variation but insurance rates also helped me make up my mind. I'm hoping there will be a bigger market for a 9A than a tail dragger when it comes time to sell. I am already thinking about being a repeat offender. The tail dragger sure looks nicer to me on the ground though.
Jim Wright 90919 wings.

Click to expand...

Although I have no intention of selling right away either, Jim, I've thought of this issue too, because I might be a repeat offender, at least of something (probably a "bush" plane like the GlaStar or something). Definitely, I would suspect that the market for a 9 would be smaller than for a 9A. At the same time, there are so many fewer 9's being built, proportionately (compared to the 7/7a, 6/6a), that the demand need not be that great to sell a -9 quickly. In fact, as the flying qualities of the 9/9A become more and more apparent (as more are completed), those who might otherwise buy 7 (with a tailwheel) but don't do aerobatics might want a 9 with a tailwheel. Obviously, this is all speculation. It just makes it that much harder for me to make my decision.

Time to go work more on mine, and get myself closer to having to make this decision once and for all!