What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Nothing in 30 Days?

Subwaybob

Subwaybob

Well Known Member
I noticed that "There have been no posts in the last 30 days in this forum."

So....

Tailwheel. Better than a nosewheel and we all know it. (Let the bashing begin) :D
 
Snowflake said:
Tailwheel. *Different* from a nosewheel and we all know it.
Click to expand...

Typically I agree with that. Until I see a $20 million airplane at Oshkosh hit a little grass. All of the sudden it looks like they should pave the whole country so their $50K nosegear stays happy.

Just out of curosity, why do they make tricycle gear anyway? (Real question) Is it to make flying or landing I should say, easier? Easier crosswind? Plane faster with tricycle? Less maintenance?
 
Subwaybob said:
Just out of curosity, why do they make tricycle gear anyway? (Real question) Is it to make flying or landing I should say, easier? Easier crosswind? Plane faster with tricycle? Less maintenance?
Click to expand...

It is all about being a easier to land, and to a lesser degree, takeoff. When Cessna started marketing their first trikes in the 50s, they called the new feature "Land-O-Matic" really! The bottom line on tailwheel vs nosegear airplanes is that in a nosedragger the CG is in front of the main gear so the airplane tends to go straight on its own. In a taildragger, the CG is behind the main gear so the airplane will try to let the CG get ahead the gear. Takes more attention to the rudder on landing. There are a few other issues but that is the biggie. Less maintenance? No, one more pneumatic tire, and in the case of most "production" aircraft strut servicing and steering damper issues. Faster? Nope, more stuff hanging out, more drag. Not much in the caes of an RV, though. Easier in a crosswind? I may take some heat for this, but the result is about the same, the technique is a little different.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
I can imagine.

Just think about a tailgragger Dreamliner!

Either a difficult uphill climb for older passengers, or if boarded from the front...a downhill slide?

F-16's melting the runway behind them?:D

Best,
 
At the moment, my RV6(A) has no gear. I pulled them all off, as I'm getting conscientious about weight. And I like the looks of those retractable RVs, where it's all hidden. Maybe I can use a dolly for takeoff, and worry about the landing............when the time comes.. :D

L.Adamson
 
Subwaybob said:
Just out of curosity, why do they make tricycle gear anyway? (Real question) Is it to make flying or landing I should say, easier? Easier crosswind? Plane faster with tricycle? Less maintenance?
Click to expand...

Well, don't forget about the whole safety of taxi thing. Remember the RV that got chopped up a couple of years ago (with fatal results) by a warbird taildragger.
 
Wolfgan Langewiesckhe postulated in 1944 in "Stick and Rudder" that the conventional gear was "unstable". It is. The training accident rate during WWII was quite high, much of it due to landing accidents. Training accidents were less frequent when the tricycle gear became standard. I read one report the Germans lost some 1500 ME-109's in landing accidents.

Building and flying your own airplane carries its own badge of merit, even more so if it is a tail dragger. We are image driven. Even from my perspective, which is quite conservative, the RV-8 is king. I sometimes think and wonder if I have the energy to build another air plane - it would be an 8.
 
taildragger

Taildraggers are a bit more of a challenge and it's a challenge that I truly enjoy. They look nicer on the ground, they fly somewhat faster and they really aren't a problem to land or taxi once you learn how. Plus, the RV8 is KING!!!
 
I think "Flying Wild Alaska" begins again this evening. Watch it, as it's the main reason for continued use of tail draggers. Other than that, the nosewheel has the advantage of automatic CG placement on landing.....so that the rear of the plane doesn't want to continue in a straight path, if you're not perfectly aligned with the direction of travel; and the fact that it's easier to see over the nose. The Van's nosewheelers can even taxi in a tighter radius.

Disadvantage of nosewheel, is when you manage to buckle it under the plane, destroying the prop, and requiring an engine tear down. I personally know this, as fact! That new nose gear bracket, sure looks good!

Disadvantage of a tailwheel, is when you ground loop, tear up a wing tip, possibly rip the gear off, which again can include prop and engine damage. Some tailwheels have also been known to clobber parked..... aircraft moving tractors. My hangar mate did that with a Pitt's...........and I believe someone else did that too... :D

Never the less, I've removed the tri-gear mounts. They're not going back on.

L.Adamson
 
John Clark said:
...

Has there ever been a "trike" Ag plane?
Click to expand...
There sure has.

The Air Truck comes to mind:
normal_TransaviaAirtruck.jpg


And for those who like round engines:
Bennet_Airtruck_model_MoTaT_s.jpg
 
Last edited:
In larger planes, the passenger area being level on the ground is a positive thing as well.
 
A guy by the name George Copland, in my hometown of Duncan, Oklahoma, had the one in the Max Max movie. Odd airplane indeed! He used to fly it to OSH on occasion as well.
That was years ago and I'm not sure what has come of him or the airplane.
 
Great info everyone. I am going to build a 7. Has to be a tail dragger. I am reminded of this video and the pilot says "Well, real men fly tail draggers..." With that said I currently HAVE to fly tricycle gear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKEuLE103cg


Oh and Brent, I have family from Halliburton central! Been there their whole life with no intention of leaving... EVER. I think they tie a rope to the bumper of the car to let them know they have gone far enongh.

panhandler1956 said:
A guy by the name George Copland, in my hometown of Duncan, Oklahoma, had the one in the Max Max movie. Odd airplane indeed! He used to fly it to OSH on occasion as well.
That was years ago and I'm not sure what has come of him or the airplane.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A friend has a mono-wheel Europa, they are actually a very nice flying airplane. 150 MPH on 100 hp, the flaps and wheels come down with one lever; pull up on the flap handle and the gear drops. There are little wheels on each wing that keeps it from falling over.

It is kind of odd taxiing it because it flops from side-to-side as you make turns.
Neal@F14 said:
How about this one?

monowheel_breakout.png


It's still got a tailwheel, however. :D
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top