Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Tailwheel Envy
- Thread starter Jamie
- Start date
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
I admit the number of nosewheel incidents has got me wondering whether I made the right decision on nosegear, but I don't have a tailwheel rating and, frankly, aviation people have made tailwheels sound like ProSealing fuel tanks, so I've never actually thought it was something I wanted to do.
I've thought about a constant speed prop. But I've never flown a plane with a constant speed prop. So, fixed pitch for me.
What I'm comfortable with is what I end up doing flying-wise 'cuz that's often hard enough for me, I'm not that interested in adding another level of complexity.
If there's more things that can go wrong, I'm guessing more things will (at least for me).
I don't want them to.
I've thought about a constant speed prop. But I've never flown a plane with a constant speed prop. So, fixed pitch for me.
What I'm comfortable with is what I end up doing flying-wise 'cuz that's often hard enough for me, I'm not that interested in adding another level of complexity.
If there's more things that can go wrong, I'm guessing more things will (at least for me).
I don't want them to.
CraigH@KRPH
Well Known Member
I'm currently shopping for my first RV, and my total flight time is split pretty evenly between nosewheel aircraft and tailwheel aircraft.
I've only got about a half hour logged in an RV, and it was a nosewheel model (RV-6A). However, I've pretty much limited my search to the tailwheel models. Just my newbie first impressions, but I found the nosewheel on the 6A to be somewhat of a liability. It seems awful weak, prone to shimmy, and prone to taxi damage on anything but the smoothest turf strips. It seemed to require many of the techniques required of a tailwheel aircraft anyways - constant backpressure on the stick and rudder steering.
Maybe it's just my unfamiliarity with the aircraft, but I was a whole lot more worried about damaging the nosewheel than I would have been worried about mishandling a tailwheel version.
I've only got about a half hour logged in an RV, and it was a nosewheel model (RV-6A). However, I've pretty much limited my search to the tailwheel models. Just my newbie first impressions, but I found the nosewheel on the 6A to be somewhat of a liability. It seems awful weak, prone to shimmy, and prone to taxi damage on anything but the smoothest turf strips. It seemed to require many of the techniques required of a tailwheel aircraft anyways - constant backpressure on the stick and rudder steering.
Maybe it's just my unfamiliarity with the aircraft, but I was a whole lot more worried about damaging the nosewheel than I would have been worried about mishandling a tailwheel version.
I've got to put $.02 worth in here. I'm a tailwheel driver. Always have been and probably always will be. BUT...I hate to see RV nosewheels being blasted by what looks to me like "pilot error". Remember guys, nose wheels are for taxiing, not landing. I read one account where a person said that his shimmy stopped when he lifted the nosewheel and returned when he lowered it again. As my old instructor used to say, "If you can lift the nosewheel off the ground, why is it on the ground?" Amateur-built aircraft don't have to be idiot-proof like spam cans do. A C-150 nosewheel has to take student abuse. An RV nosewheel doesn't, so why add the extra weight. RV nosewheels are plenty strong if treated correctly.
Mel...DAR
Mel...DAR
KiloWhiskey
Member
Paraphrasing the wife (since this is a family oriented site)
"Those real men may prefer taildraggers, but the ladies tend to prefer something substantial in front of the main gear. And a pilot who knows how to use it."
"Those real men may prefer taildraggers, but the ladies tend to prefer something substantial in front of the main gear. And a pilot who knows how to use it."
Dad's RV-10
Well Known Member
Mel, maybe this isn?t as big a concern in a light GA a/c as it is in heavier transport a/c, but bear in mind if you hold the nose wheel off as long as possible, it will eventually come down. The point at which it comes down is the point at which the tail-plane is no longer generating enough lift to keep the nose wheel off the ground?the tail plane has essentially stalled. If you don?t employ proper technique, a stalled tail-plane will allow the nose wheel to drop to the runway rather abruptly. And since the tail-plane has already stalled, the pilot has no ability to lessen the impact. This can result in extensive damage to the nose gear and to the airframe, in a worst-case scenario.Mel said:
I?m not saying you should put the nose wheel down as soon as the mains touch?I don?t do this myself?but you should plan to bring the nose wheel down while the elevator is still generating enough lift to positively command the nose to the runway in a controlled manner.
Brad
Of all the light general aviation aircraft that I have flown (and I have flown over 78 different models) I have never had the experience of the tailplane stalling abruptly letting the nosewheel drop. The closest thing I have run across is the Mooney where the main gear is so far aft that holding the nosewheel off is difficult at best. Heavier "transport" type aircrarft...different deal altogether. As a matter of fact the extreme being the Space Shuttle where the nose wheel MUST be lowered earlier because the mains will not support the total weight. (Told to me by Robert "Hoot" Gibson) Bottom line...On RVs there is no problem with holding the nosewheel off as long as possible.
Mel...DAR
Mel...DAR
Dad's RV-10
Well Known Member
I can?t say I?ve ever flown the Space Shuttle, and I honestly haven?t done much GA flying in the last 10 years, but the airlines I?ve flown for prohibit keeping the nose wheel ?flying? for as long as possible for the reasons stated above.
bk
bk
Bob Martin
Well Known Member
Tailwheels do Too
I experiance the same thing when I hold the tail wheel off the runway in a wheel landing, if i don't "let" it down while I can, it will drop! but it doesn't take but one time to learn what causes it and not repeat it. well, maybe twice!
Bob Martin
RV-6
I experiance the same thing when I hold the tail wheel off the runway in a wheel landing, if i don't "let" it down while I can, it will drop! but it doesn't take but one time to learn what causes it and not repeat it. well, maybe twice!
Bob Martin
RV-6
mark manda
Well Known Member
When I bought my Cessna 140 and was getting a check ride from the owner-- I asked "is this about right or too fast?" while taxiing.
He said something like, "I'm from the old school, anything faster than a fast walk is too fast..." might apply that on non paved surfaces.
He said something like, "I'm from the old school, anything faster than a fast walk is too fast..." might apply that on non paved surfaces.
Jamie
Well Known Member
BJohnson said:
I've posted this before, but I'll post it again for the sake of comparison.
How's this for a rough landing?
I was riding with a friend of mine in his -6A, flying into the newly cleared/leveled grass strip of another friend of ours. You can see by the video that he demonstrates proper technique for a soft-field landing. Look closely at the ground when the aircraft stops. You can see that this isn't one of the aforementioned nice turf strips. Since then his grass as grown in and he's repacked it so it's a bit nicer.
I wouldn't recommend anyone attempt a landing like this...but it goes to show you that proper pilot technique is essential to landing the RV (tailwheel or nosewheel) on a rough strip.
I have more tailwheel time than nosewheel, despite flying my RV-6A for 200 hours. When I was RV shopping I wanted a -6, but a 6A came up at the right price so I bought it. No regrets with that decision. There are many RVs for sale, not many met my requirements. I have had no problems with the nosewheel. I'm with Mel, the nosewheel comes off early in the TO roll, and stays in the air as long as possible on landing - its not a commercial airplane, don't treat it like one. On grass I taxi slowly. My wife much prefers a nosewheel.
I much prefer a tailwheel. I fly for fun and enjoyment, and the challenge of doing something well. A tailwheel requires just a little more skill to do everything well - said another way, it is slightly less forgiving. Right now I am looking for ways to put some of the challenge back into flying. I think a tailwheel is one way to do some of that.
I also think a tailwheel is easier to build, easier to maintain and allows the engine to run cooler. I only have a few hours in a tailwheel RV so cannot really comment on what a -6 is like, maybe its a case of the grass is always greener on the otherside? Having said all of that, an RV could never be described as a difficult or challenging tailwheel aircraft (and I've flown many different tailwheel types).
Pete
I much prefer a tailwheel. I fly for fun and enjoyment, and the challenge of doing something well. A tailwheel requires just a little more skill to do everything well - said another way, it is slightly less forgiving. Right now I am looking for ways to put some of the challenge back into flying. I think a tailwheel is one way to do some of that.
I also think a tailwheel is easier to build, easier to maintain and allows the engine to run cooler. I only have a few hours in a tailwheel RV so cannot really comment on what a -6 is like, maybe its a case of the grass is always greener on the otherside? Having said all of that, an RV could never be described as a difficult or challenging tailwheel aircraft (and I've flown many different tailwheel types).
Pete
Bill Dicus
Well Known Member
No envy
Flying our old Piper Lance the nosewheel seems great. Flying my Pitts S-2A the tailwheel is even better. That's why I'm building an RV-8! Also won't have to worry about new prop and engine overhaul after nose wheel failure. Bill
Flying our old Piper Lance the nosewheel seems great. Flying my Pitts S-2A the tailwheel is even better. That's why I'm building an RV-8! Also won't have to worry about new prop and engine overhaul after nose wheel failure. Bill
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Here is the latest nose gear problem
Good news is the pilot and passenger are fine; the plane did not flip and looks repairable.
http://homepage.mac.com/mikec6/PhotoAlbum1.html
The pilot was nice enough to post this on the RV-7/7A Yahoo group which I will repeat.
For the record I know we are all so sorry for his incident and thankful for their safety and passing on this input and experience.
It was my aircraft N311WT and I was the Pilot In Command. I was
taxing for departure on the grass runway at Beaumont Hotel, Kansas.
Here are the details:
The engine is the Eggenfellner 2.5 Subaru with supercharger.
The baggage compartment had 80# of luggage.
I weigh 215# and my wife weighs 160#.
There was a total of 13 gallons of fuel in the tanks.
The nose was so light that I had to be careful getting in so that the tail didn't go down.
I had just looked at the GPS to check the taxi speed and it was 4 knots.
We didn't strike a hole but the ground was washboard.
If you look at the photos, you will see that the nose gear not only folded under but twisted, causing the right wing to momentarily dip. You will also notice that the cowling and spinner were not struck which suggest a low speed.
The weight of my aircraft is 1199 lbs.
I make all of my landings as though it is a soft field (nose up
landing on the mains then holding the nose off as long as possible).
Also, I make all of my takeoffs as though soft field (nose slightly
off as soon as possible). Walter (Mike) Casey
So this was not a case of pilot landing error, just taxing. Please no rage and heated debate, it is what it is. What I get is be careful and stuff happens we can't always control or anticipate.
Regards George
Good news is the pilot and passenger are fine; the plane did not flip and looks repairable.
http://homepage.mac.com/mikec6/PhotoAlbum1.html
The pilot was nice enough to post this on the RV-7/7A Yahoo group which I will repeat.
For the record I know we are all so sorry for his incident and thankful for their safety and passing on this input and experience.
It was my aircraft N311WT and I was the Pilot In Command. I was
taxing for departure on the grass runway at Beaumont Hotel, Kansas.
Here are the details:
The engine is the Eggenfellner 2.5 Subaru with supercharger.
The baggage compartment had 80# of luggage.
I weigh 215# and my wife weighs 160#.
There was a total of 13 gallons of fuel in the tanks.
The nose was so light that I had to be careful getting in so that the tail didn't go down.
I had just looked at the GPS to check the taxi speed and it was 4 knots.
We didn't strike a hole but the ground was washboard.
If you look at the photos, you will see that the nose gear not only folded under but twisted, causing the right wing to momentarily dip. You will also notice that the cowling and spinner were not struck which suggest a low speed.
The weight of my aircraft is 1199 lbs.
I make all of my landings as though it is a soft field (nose up
landing on the mains then holding the nose off as long as possible).
Also, I make all of my takeoffs as though soft field (nose slightly
off as soon as possible). Walter (Mike) Casey
So this was not a case of pilot landing error, just taxing. Please no rage and heated debate, it is what it is. What I get is be careful and stuff happens we can't always control or anticipate.
Regards George
Last edited:
Jamie
Well Known Member
Bill Dicus said:
No, you just need to worry about it when you get a nice tailwind gust during taxi ops a la the beautiful RV-8 at Sun-n-Fun this year. I saw it happen. He hit the brakes (not too hard either) to stop and at that very moment he got a nice gust that took the plane almost vertical on the spinner. The tail hit the ground so hard that it wrinkled the aft bottom skins.
Now, this is certainly anectodal, but you have to admit that there have been many RV taildraggers have prop strikes for different reasons. One recently was from a guy mishandling a wheel landing in a -4 and getting his nose a little low. Neither design is immune to prop strikes.
Last edited:
Mel said:
My 6A will drop the nose abruptly if you keep the stick hauled back and wait. You want to gently lower the nose while you still have elevator authority. While we hope that all RVs are within the proper C of G limits, it's important to note that the prototype RV6A was under 1000 lbs. with a light engine and wood prop. The ones with a Hartzell C/S that are in the 1100-1150 range have far more weight on the nose gear so it is prudent to be careful. As Van's say- " build it light".
Jamie
Well Known Member
One important thing to remember about flying any tri-gear aircraft is that even if your airspeed is inadequate to lift the nose off the ground, the stick in your lap at even slow airspeeds will reduce at least some weight for the nosewheel. This is assuming of course that you have a net headwind while taxiing. If you have a tailwind, putting the stick in your lap will increase the amount of weight on the nose.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Bob Collins said:
About 1/3 of my total time is in TW aircraft, split between 40 +/- different makes and models.
Most of the BS you hear about flying TW aircraft is just that, BS. Look at it like learning to fly, after 10 hours of duel you will wonder what the big deal was. Yes, you have to pay attention but shouldn't you be doing that when taking off and landing anyway?
A friend with over 5,000 TW hours once told me that when he turns downwind to base he adjusts himself in the seat, sits up straight, raises his head, moves his feet up the peddles, just gets ready to land. He said that little action helps him focus on the task at hand. It must work because in the same day I've flown with him in a J-3, Stearman, T-6, and C-150 and each and every landing we did was so very smooth I was never sure when we touched down.
What I tell people who ask about TW aircraft is, "If you like the plane, buy it and find a good instructor, flying a taildragger is just another learned motor skill. Remember when you thought you would never figure out the landing flair thing? Well you will figure out the tailwheel thing too."
rodrv6
Well Known Member
RVbySDI said:
The nose gear wouldn't be supporting any more or less weight than with a Lycoming or any other engine up front. If the Subaur installation was significantly heavier to the point of adding excessive weight to the nosewheel, then the fwd C of G would be too far forward and out of limits. The pilot reports a light fuel load, 80 lbs in the baggage compartment, and two reasonably sized people on board. Not exactly a forward C of G condition.
Back to the Original Question
Never. The A is harder to build and if you lose a brake you lose ground steering capability, etc. etc. but once you have it flying, a flip-floppy landing gear attitude just doesn't enter the picture. You fly it to the best of your ability and try to grease it on everytime. It is a sweet flying and landing machine unless the breakout force is low then it will shake like a flat tire no matter how slow you get it before the nose gear settles on. Landing is such a small part of flying I'm surprised this keeps coming up.
Bob Axsom
Never. The A is harder to build and if you lose a brake you lose ground steering capability, etc. etc. but once you have it flying, a flip-floppy landing gear attitude just doesn't enter the picture. You fly it to the best of your ability and try to grease it on everytime. It is a sweet flying and landing machine unless the breakout force is low then it will shake like a flat tire no matter how slow you get it before the nose gear settles on. Landing is such a small part of flying I'm surprised this keeps coming up.
Bob Axsom
rodrv6 said:
I don't think we can be so sure of that.
The empty C.G. could be outside the limit but the airplane wasn't empty.
An RV-7A with an empty weight of 1199 Lbs! This Subaru installation is advertised to be comparable in weight to an IO-360 Lycoming. The Lyc produces empty weights that are typically around 1135 lbs or so for an average on an RV-7A. This particular airplane was probably at least 50 lbs heavier than most RV-7A's.
Just because there was weight in the back doesn't mean it was light on the nose. It is possible that with all that weight the C.G. was somewhere near the mid point or even further fwd than that. I know of one Egg. Subaru equiped RV-9A that when weighed was about 100 lbs heavier than an average weight for an RV-9A with an O-320 Lyc. Pretty much the entire additional weight was on the nose wheel when positioned in a level flight attitude on the digital scales (which is worse case compared to sitting in a three point attitude on the ground, but still a lot of extra weight on the nose).
Scott
