What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV tip over (flip upside down)

oldsfolks

Member
Nosewheels NEVER fit on a dirt road for landings in emergency. Nosewheels make sloppy airplane drivers.
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
 
Nose Dragger

If you look at how the birds do it you will notice that after making two "wheel" touch downs they usually put their noses down next. Obviously God intended for us to have the nose touch down too. This must be in the Bible somewhere! ;) George
 
That's funny. I'll go look at birds landing now.

Though I think that taildraggers look better -- with their noses jutting into the air, it's as if they're yearning to fly!

Max
 
Real Aviators

I would say that a real aviator is any aviator who is smart enough to know his limitations. This could apply to many areas of aviation nose gear versus tail wheel, IFR versus VFR, and so on. And if we get into the area of comparing our wonderful airplanes to birds we are all wrong...have you ever seen a low wing bird? Lets never forget the old saying "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are very few old, bold pilots." Have you seen the all new FA-18 Hornet "taildragger"....hmmm! neither have I!

VK
 
Builders look

The RV tail wheel is easier to build, and Easier to maintain, I would rather build them for that reason .
I welcome any one that wants to fly and join the RV family, even if they got to have a nose wheel. Come on in! the waters warm!!
 
Last edited:
I wanted to make a post along the lines of N819VK but have held off. I think the cost of insurance could be the deciding factor for a pilot like me with no taildragger time (but lots of rides in them :) ) And I think that "real pilots" given the chance will fly anything that gets them airborne.
 
Certainly agree with that mindset. I don't know how much more the insurance is for a t/w as opposed to a n/w. Maybe JT from NationAir can chime in.

Just so you'll know... I had zero tailwheel time when my RV-6 was finished, and after about ten hours of transition training found that landing a t/w aircraft to be no real big deal. Oops, I shouldn't have said that...the macho image of the t/w pilot is now busted ;) .

B,
dr

arffguy said:
I wanted to make a post along the lines of N819VK but have held off. I think the cost of insurance could be the deciding factor for a pilot like me with no taildragger time (but lots of rides in them :) ) And I think that "real pilots" given the chance will fly anything that gets them airborne.
 
arffguy said:
I wanted to make a post along the lines of N819VK but have held off. I think the cost of insurance could be the deciding factor for a pilot like me with no taildragger time (but lots of rides in them :) ) And I think that "real pilots" given the chance will fly anything that gets them airborne.

Yeah, this was the deciding factor for me. I'm just now finishing up my wings on my -7A and I ordered the fuselage a couple of weeks ago. The fuse is of course the point where the builder must really commit to wheel configuration. I went with the tricycle gear primarily because of insurance. After calling around and talking to Aaron at NationAir I discovered that it was going to cost me major $$ just to look cool in the taildragger.

This caused me to re-evaluate the 'mission' for my airplane. My mission is to keep this thing as simple, safe and cost-effective as possible. We're not rich, so every consideration must be made to keep costs down. I figured that by today's rates (and by the time I'm flying they're almost guaranteed to be more), I'll make up the difference in kit cost in insurance savings in less than a year.

Another factor was the time requirements. There was only one insurance company that would write policies for tailwheel RV's regardless of the pilot's tailwheel time. They are no longer writing new business. I have a tailwheel endorsement, but I only have about 15 hours in tailwheels. The remaining companies will not cover you for phase one if you don't have 50-100 hrs tw. This for me was another big factor in the decision since I want to fly my first flight.

Also, this is *my* airplane. My original intent was to build the tricycle gear, then I started getting hounded by folks telling me that only real aviators fly taildraggers and other assorted bullcrap which has no basis in reality. I've already heard people calling the tricycle gear a 'sissy' wheel. I guess when people start hounding me I can ask them if they built the real kit or the sissy kit (quickbuild)! :D

And oh yeah...there's that safety thing. I'm not saying that taildraggers are that dangerous, but there is an element of safety involved. This would have most likely been a non-event with the nosewheel.

Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A wings
http://rv.jpainter.org
 
In addition to the points Jamie made, I also wanted an easier platform for my wife and maybe daughter to fly some day.

And there are some airstrips that were just plain built wrong. The airport closest to my parents house out at the ocean almost always has a 5-10 knot gusting crosswind, and it's a narrow strip. I landed there for the first time Sunday in a spam can, and it was tricky. I'd rather have that slight nosewheel advantage working for me.

Go ahead. Call it a training wheel. I can take it. ;)
 
Jamie said:
I've already heard people calling the tricycle gear a 'sissy' wheel. I guess when people start hounding me I can ask them if they built the real kit or the sissy kit (quickbuild)! :D

mie D. Painter
RV-7A wings
http://rv.jpainter.org

Never forget; people who call them sissy wheels do NOT get a ride. That's called "sweet justice". ;)

Vern
RV7-AAAAAAAAAAAA
 
I think every pilot owes it to themself to at least get checked out in a tailwheel (it WILL make you more proficient at flying with the wheel on either end).
 
Last edited:
Scott DellAngelo said:
I think every pilot owes it to themself to at least get checked out in a tailwheel (it WILL make you more proficient at flying with the wheel on either end).
I couldn't agree more. My landings have improved dramatically after learning to fly taildraggers.
 
I just couldn't resist throughing fuel on the fire.

A few years ago when I decided to build a plane I talked to my grandfather about it. Why did I talk to my grandpa? Well he's a retired Air Force General that flew in three wars. He's flown in a P47,51,38 F80,86,100, C119,131,141,5. I'm missing a bunch in there. Point is he has a bit of flying experience, much more than my GA stuff.

Well when I asked him about building a tailwheel his responce to that was quite clear.

"They fixed that problem a long time ago"
 
Nose Wheels have benefits too!

I don't normally weigh in on these discussions, but I've got a minute, so what the heck! I always hear everyone talking about how "real men" fly taildraggers. Then, I go out to the airport and there are a bunch of "real men" sitting around waiting for the wind to die down. They are wringing their hands and really wishing they could go fly. I normally don't give them any grief, I just slip around them on the way to my pre-flight... You can call nosewheel pilots "girly men" if you want. But, also recognize the smirk when we don't respond, cause we're just goin' flyin'!

It's fun to debate the nose wheel vs. taildragger issue, but in the end they all fly about the same upside down!

Dennis
"Diceman"
N464DM, RV-6A (Yep, a nose dragger!)
 
Tailwheel experience minimum required for insurance

Phoenix used to write coverage for new TW pilots. All they required was a TW endorsement (or that you were grandfathered by the FAA) and a checkout in RVs.

Now that Phoenix is no longer interested in insuring RVs, AIG and the EAA's requirements are much stricter. Neither of them are too eager to write coverage for pilots with less than 50 hours of TW experience. And, they'd really prefer that be in higher HP Tailwheels (not all j3 cub time). Coverage can sometimes be bound for lower experience level pilots, but the training requirements would be pretty stiff.

I heard someone say that there were comments out on the web that NationAir didn't do RVs any longer. That isn't true. We are very dedicated to those 1200 RV customers that we have. The loss of Phoenix's support and preferred rates hasn't derailed NationAir's commitment to that (this) group of owners.

We deal with all 8 companies that do aviation insurance. Unfortunately, not all of them write coverage for homebuilts, currently. But, if other companies can be convinced to come into this market, we'll certainly be aware of it (or the one's doing the convincing). The lower the accident rate and severity, the better opportunity that exists for that to happen.

Fly safe.

John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency's
Light Aircraft Office
 
Its really just evolution

I prefer to look at the tail-dragger/nose-dragger debate as a matter of evolution.

Many years ago pre-man was pretty hairy and was designed to be a "knuckle dragger" that we know today as the ape. Over time man evolved into the elegant and well-adapted being that we all know today. There's an analogy in aircraft history. The tail-dragger came first but over time a design evolved that was better suited to getting into and out of the air without ground-looping because of a misplaced center of gravity. :D As some have noted, insurance companies recognize the superior design when they give tricycle gear planes better rates.

Now some folks will argue that real "pilots" (not real men) fly tail-draggers implying they somehow posess superior flying skills. In reality, the skill needed with a tail-dragger has nothing to do with flying and everything to do with ground control (aka "driving"). I'd love to hear a LOGICAL argument that explains why the group of pilots with the supposedly superior skills (tail-dragger pilots) have to pay higher insurance than those inferior nose-wheel pilots. If there was actually any data to support the difference in skill levels argument that would be even better. :D

Its my opinion, supported by no more data than you'll find in this note, that tricycle gear pilots have demonstrated the ability to exercise the most crucial of flying skills - good judgement. They selected the safer aircraft to fly rather than the better looking airplane (yeah, even I gotta admit that tail-dragger planes are better looking).

Don RV-9AAAAAAAAAAA (fuselage)

No flames please....this was sent tongue in cheek....mostly.
 
Nose gear prob... I mean issue

Latest RVator has an article about some recent incidents where a RV-A flipped on it's back. (One on Take off!)

There seems to be an issue with wheel pants being too tight. Just the act of the pant catching the tire causes a deflection of the nose strut, which starts a chain reaction. End result the nose wheel folds. One accident was on take off and another occurred last week was landing on turf. The TG is thought to be better on dirt if for no other reason than taxi with prop tips further from rocks. Also the nose gear on the RV is small and likely to plow or catch. The wheel/tire is in trail. So if an obstacle is tall enough the strut will hit it before the tire.

Another accident down under w/ a RV-7A in Aussie Land in the last month has some worried. :confused:


I think the design of the nose gear on the Model "A" works fine but has its limitations as all things do. Yes if you takeoff and get the nose up early and land holding the nose off as long as possible, you say what is the problem? It is easy to think it is some pilot error. It could be, but clearly the nose strut is not that robust. First it is angled forward from the mount with some S curves bent into it, kind-a-like pushing a rope. Then you got this little Fork-thingy wiggling and wagging on the end of the strut with an offset which puts a little more bending and side load in. Add surface irregularity, poor tire inflation, wheel fairing catching and............................

I think the only solution is to take the nose wheel off and put a little wheel on the back. :D (sorry I could not resist, someone had to say it).

Insurance: Someone states TG insurance problem? I now have 600 hours tail dragger, but had no problem with insurance on my RV-4. I think I had about 100 TG and 7000 total at the time when I applied. I sold it, but I recalled I paid about $1000/yr thru EAA acro group.

Recently on the RV-7 yahoo list someone state they could not get insurance for their "A" Model, and it was suggested by this writer that it was due to the rash of A model flips?

I would also say when it comes to crappy landings, from a gear strength viewpoint; the "A" model may be a little more vulnerable? Lets face it, plow the nose gear it will not be as forgiving as a C-172. Bounce hard the nose gear will slap down, deflect, small swerve, add a runway bump, deflect more, prop hits and flip-pit-de-do-da. Yes a TG can bend gears and flip in its own unique and wonderful way, given an abortion of a landing. It is just that the Tri-gear seems a little weaker? :eek:

The TG is thought to more of a tiger to tame. I learned in a Piper cub (no I am not that old 40) and the RV is no harder to fly than a Cub. The landing speed in a RV is low and things happen relatively slowly. I am sorry to dispel the super-do-per pilot skill myth guy's. Of course in a cross wind you MUST land with no drift, use proper and timely control inputs throughout the landing and fly it all the way (to the tie down). Try to use the Tri-gear landing technique "Crab-N-Plop (it-down)" method in a TG will give poor results. The RV-A is more forgiving in this respect, however that is poor technique and given the flex of the nose gear, you may get a nasty surprise putting side load into the "pencil" nose gear leg.

Bottom line is if you make good consistent landings in all conditions in a RV-A, you would have no problem learning to making good landings with a TG. I suggest if you are on the fence, go out and buy some TG time in Citabria or something. Than go rent or fly a C-152, C-172 or better yet Grumman Yank-me. Tell me which one is more fun to fly (I mean land and taxi). Nothing wrong with a RV-A, they don't weigh much more (10-20lbs), they don't fly slower (much 2 mph), and have better taxi visibility. I will not say easier taxi. I would rather have a direct connection to the tail wheel thru rudder than a nose gear that req jabbing brakes. IF you seat is high enough you can see over the nose well enough in most cases so S-turns are not req.

If all you have flown is a nose gear, than the tail-wheel will seem "different", but after 1-5 hours you will be comfortable. If not, "Know-thy-self" and go with the nose wheel. You can't go wrong either way, but if there is a comfort issue than don't worry what us TG drivers think. Even though TG'ers are better (looking). :D

I read a pilot with lots of experienced in RV's, built several RV's, went to an "A" model. Gasp? He said it is just easier. OK can't argue with that. Have fun, fly safe, I am sticking with a TG because it is more fun for me to fly (I mean takeoff, land and taxi). I get to fly a "Tri-gear" at work anyway.

Cheers G RV-4, RV-7 project
 
I agree that care must be taken landing a tri-gear RV and that it is not nearly as forgiving as most spam cans with their nose wheel struts. Van's says that *they* even prefer the tri-gears for landing on grass runways. Most RV builders like to mount their wheel pants with as little tire as possible showing for aerodynamic cleanliness, so this precludes them from landing on extremely rough strips anyway.

Check out this page:

http://rv.jpainter.org/?view=entry&date=2004-08-14

Half way down there is a link to a video I took with my digital camera of a landing at a new grass strip (this was only the second landing *ever* there) in a -6A. The strip was about 50% dirt/50% grass.

Also, I think it's a bit unfair to categorize the nosewheel RV's as being more likely to flip over on their back. There have been quite a few tailwheel RV's go over as well...most from making off-field landings -- landings the tailwheels are supposed to be superior at handling.

The Day the Imitutor Fell From The Sky
Or This Bird Strike Story

(these are just the ones I could remember off the top of my head, but there have been many others. I know because before commiting to building an RV I read *every* RV accident report in the NTSB database).

The question I have is, *why* is practically EVERY new plane (even new designs!) tri-gear?
 
N819VK said:
Have you seen the all new FA-18 Hornet "taildragger"....hmmm! neither have I!

VK

Yep, I have. Back in 89 (I think) I was at El Toro for an air show. An FA-18 driver was putting on a great show when he looped it a bit too close to the deck and his tail tragged on the runway, closely followed by the rest of the plane. He rode it all the way to the end of the runway and the plane stayed upright. It is my understanding the pilot was broken but survived but was court-martialed for destroying government property.

As soon as it happened Bob Hoover went up in the Shrike. That kept the crowd from watching them pick up the parts and pieces.

BTW, that was one of three airplane crashes I?ve witnessed and the only one at an air show.

As for which end the little should go on, I?m putting mine on the correct end, that would be the little end.

Bill
 
Practical Tail Wheel Advantages

I built a -7 instead of a -7A, even though preferring the handling advantages of a nosedragger, because in the RV side-by-side series the nosedragger's main gear legs and reinforcing structure grossly intrude into foot space. It's always in the way, getting in, getting out, and the whole time you're in the seat. No, I refuse to get used to it, just like I would refuse to get used to an elephant in the living room. I think for the sake of parts commonality, Van's really botched the human factors. Also, with a tail wheel RV, steps are unnecessary, and you can reach into the baggage area while standing on the ground - especially nice if you have a tip-up slider mod.

Insurance? Limit your expense by buying liability only. It's a bundle less than hull coverage. Getting out of bed is risky, too.

The tail draggers are not particularly vicious, but you do need to pay stricter attention because it is the less foregiving configuration.

John Siebold
 
Keep it simple

I had a guy in RV Central recently and he was wanting me to build him a RV7a. [I am a trying to be a tail wheel shop??]

Doug says " Its No big deal" Just keep the nose straight.
 
Last edited:
Yes!!

Doyle,
Yes , the nose wheel is toooo complicated for me??? How do? you get the exhaust through all that tubing? How does one fare up that Big slit in the bottom of a cowl?? Just overwhelming... :confused:

And what do you do with all that visibility taxeing?? It must be visual overload :eek:
You may remember I came up there with Peter, in a RV8a to buy your Casper {in a big cross wind}. Cluck, cluck..I like nose rollers too...

casper said:
Jay; I was just wondring if that nose wheel was to complicated for you
Casper 2
 
Last edited:
Tail Wheel

A tail wheel will be used so I don't have to lift the nose at takeoff. Besides many other things. A nose gear is popular because it is more idiot proof. I have watched many feathered birds and they all use thier tail as a balance. They never ever touch their bill down while landing. The only feathered bird that puts it's head down when not eating is the flightless osterich. When some one says (as some people have) that feathered birds use their beak for landing it is a lie. Read the rest of this section to see this! They try to use this lie to justify nose wheels and say GOD intended it. The truth about this is baloney! I know nuthing! Ja
Nose wheels are a big drag producer unless they are part of retractable gear.
Period and end of story!
 
Last edited:
Period and end of story?????

leeschaumberg said:
Nose wheels are a big drag producer unless they are part of retractable gear.
Period and end of story!


Period and end of story????? I didn't realize that 2 mph was that big of a drag. Why don't you check out Van's speed numbers for taildraggers vs nose draggers.
 
Small Speed Penaltys

The speed penalty for a nose wheel for whatever model is reported at 2 mph. Now take a nose wheel on a grass strip of 600 feet and see what happens. If the strip is smooth throw in a few ruts. Or try to land on the side of a mountain like other folks do. A good RV with enough power does not need to lift the tail to take off. If you don't believe me just get a ride in a 200 hp RV8 and see what happens. Speed penalties of 2 mph when added up can be substantail. Is this 2 mph at a cruise of 160 mph or 200 knots at altitude?
Lee

_______________________________________

The rest of the story
 
leeschaumberg said:
Or try to land on the side of a mountain like other folks do. Lee

Oh jeez; I was planning on landing on the sides of lot's of mountains. Now I have to change my plans. :D
 
N916K said:
leeschaumberg said:
Nose wheels are a big drag producer unless they are part of retractable gear.
Period and end of story!


Period and end of story????? I didn't realize that 2 mph was that big of a drag. Why don't you check out Van's speed numbers for taildraggers vs nose draggers.



RV's don't take as much of an aerodymic and weight hit as others have because the are relatively weak.

If you don't want to fly an airplane, buy a cessna.
 
The penalty is more than 2mph. I know what Vans publishes, but locals who had a TD and nw have a Trike, have told me that it is a larger penalty than that. They have not been specific, just that it is more than 2 mph
 
My dad and I will be making our 7 a taildragger. The main reason is they look better. I mean apart from cost what other advantage is there??
My dad currently own a cessna 150. About 2 years ago we converted it to a tail dragger. The net speed gain??? Maybe 2 knots... Maybe. We were expecting and were told we would get more but there you go. What you think might happen and what actually happens is not the same thng.
 
Emotions vs reality

If you want to use an emotionmal argument for the type of plane you build, that's great you should like the plane you build. But, don't use that emotional argument to make false claims of performance to better your case.

Now I'm going to go fly my airplane that I built. :D
 
GRANT ED said:
My dad and I will be making our 7 a taildragger. The main reason is they look better. I mean apart from cost what other advantage is there??
My dad currently own a cessna 150. About 2 years ago we converted it to a tail dragger. The net speed gain??? Maybe 2 knots... Maybe. We were expecting and were told we would get more but there you go. What you think might happen and what actually happens is not the same thng.

Believe it or not, looks became a great part of my decision, after months of thinking about it. I decided that the tri-gear 6A looked better and larger on the ground, while the taildragger looked better in the air. Since I'd be looking more often from the outside while on the ground, I went with the 6A.

I do like tail draggers though. A P51D Mustang is my favorite airplane of all time, and I'd always like a Aviat Huskey for backcountry flight.

L.Adamson
 
Uhhhhhh Yeah

Actually there have been some pretty exciting threads on the yahoo boards regarding this issue. I don't think a hard final answer has yet been determined but there have been several instances of nosegear digging into soft ground and pole-vaulting the plan onto its back. Nobody has actually called these incidents nosewheel failures as I don't believe the nosegear has actually collapsed, but I think Van's has recommended greater clearance between the wheel fairings and the tires. Of course the "real" pilots who fly draggers and posted to these threads seem to think it is a combination of pilot error and not knowing how to fly. And of course they point out that this is not an issue with taildraggers.

In my opinion, it is simply the realities of the two configurations. Taildraggers are more suited to landing on soft fields and if you stick a pole on the front of a plane and then jam it into the soft ground or slam it down hard on the concrete, the results are not going to be good. On the other hand if you don't handle a taildragger properly, expecially on windy days, bad things are going to happen as well.
 
I can't believe people even argue about this stuff. It seems like an awful lot of the pro tri-gear arguments come form folks who've never flown a tailwheel. I'm no expert with tailwheels, but I've done maybe 100 hours in a Decath and the horror stories about tailwheel aircraft seem way overblown. If you've never flown a t.w. go out and do it, it's actually a lot of fun.
 
Republican-Democrat, primer-no primer, IBM-Mac, nosewheel-tailwheel. I haven't yet met anyone in any of those camps whose mnd was ever changed by the other "camp".


Y'all need to spend your debating time helping me building my RV instead,.

(vbg)
 
Maybe so

Maybe so, but this forum is the Nosewheel vs. tailwheel forum. Isn't this suppose to be the place to have fun, state your OPINION, and poke a few jabs at the other camp. Sure each will make their own decision when the time come but I for one like to hear the opinions of others one way or the other. It is all in fun! Don't take the positions too seriously though.
 
All that said, Nose Gear Drivers Rule!!! Best looking, fastest flying, slowest, best, landing, fastest take off 'cause the tail is already up, best climbing, best visibility, best hunk and (for you guys) babe magnet, and it gives me a good spot for my eagle. Did I miss anything?

Anyway you build an RV is the right way for you!!!! :) :) ;) And they are all fast and beautiful!!!

Roberta

hegyrv7a28gl.jpg
 
Last edited:
szicree said:
I can't believe people even argue about this stuff. It seems like an awful lot of the pro tri-gear arguments come form folks who've never flown a tailwheel. I'm no expert with tailwheels, but I've done maybe 100 hours in a Decath and the horror stories about tailwheel aircraft seem way overblown. If you've never flown a t.w. go out and do it, it's actually a lot of fun.

I know that it's easier to see over the nose of a tailwheel RV than some others, and I could even say that it's "not macho" enough if you can see over the nose & avoid S-turning :)

However, the Pitt's S2B that I took aerobatic instruction in around 10 years ago, did hit a disabled aircraft towing tractor sitting on the taxiway, because neither the instructor nor student saw it. There was enough damage to require disassembly of the aircraft to ship back to the manufacturer.

This really IS a disadvantage of "some" taildraggers, as these types of accidents, especially with other airplanes on the taxiways do happen.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
And the Point is?

I am reasonably certain my individual take on the great nosewheel/taildragger debate will not even slightly begin to change anyone's mind anymore than I am likely to change my view if challenged with a more cogent and powerful argument. My thoughts are sure to purse a few lips, but what the hey......I've not the temperment nor inclination to run for office. I'll leave bland and unoffending smooth talk to the practiced politician. Besides, I happen to believe all personal opinion contains unpredictable elements of uniquely individual perspective, experience, and perception. Once formed, one is not likely to change his or her opinion easily. Unless one seeks votes. Okay, now for the good stuff. Item: When was the last time the United States Air Force or Navy ordered a tailwheel airplane? Item: During WWII, as many P-51 Mustangs were lost to training accidents as were destroyed in combat. How many of the total were lost to take off and landing accidents? The beautiful and majestic P-51 aside, what lessons on aircraft ground handling do you suppose were learned during the war years by our naturally conservative military leaders? I find it ironic that many people bemoan 60 year old engine technology powering modern aircraft but have no problem accepting 100 year old tailwheel technology when given the choice. If you really want to go classic, put a damned tail skid on the sucker, lose the brakes and stick to flying off dirt. I'm as romantic as the next guy but having flown in both configurations, I much prefer the ground perspective and handling qualities of a nosedragger. An approximately 10% difference in yearly premiums speaks volumes about insurance company attitudes.... and claim payout history. I wholeheartedly agree some airplanes do look better on the ground squatting on their little tails, yawning skyward. Yet other designs simply lend themselves to looking better sporting a nosewheel. Side by side, an RV-6A somehow looks larger and more poised (my perspective) than an RV-6. On the other hand, from my perspective I view an RV-8 as bit more sexy in ground pose than an RV-8A...but not by much. To me a C-150 Texas Taildragger looks a bit...well..."forced". From my perspective, I cannot imagine a DC-3 sporting a nosewheel anymore than I can abide a taildragging B-25! But in the end, isn't this a little like arguing about who is prettier....Elizabeth Hurley or Catherine Zita Jones? There is little doubt that the deft rudder dance constantly demanded of the tailwheel pilot is a challenging and rewarding skill.....if mostly limited to when the wheels are rolling on the ground. This is a skill best suited for airplanes and unimproved fields in which a tailwheel can be more efficient. After that, all airplanes offer equal opportunity flight. Sure, you can't ignore the rudder petals to bank a Citabria smoothly. But sloppy turns can be improved upon without undo incident. Dealing with an unforecast crosswind at distant Point B is a whole 'nother ball game and one facet of flight I'd sooner defer to a nosewheel up front. Why wrestle with geometry if you don't have to? I don't buy the "because it makes you a better pilot" argument. Yea, and there was a time when the FAA required spin training.....what happened there? I will close by saying at every airport I have ever been based there is one constant I have consistently observed. Generally speaking....and there are exceptions....but generally speaking....when the wind blows sideways, the tailwheel crowd can usually be found in the pilots lounge drinking coffee and swapping lies while the nosewheel crowd is either busy preflighting or on short final.
 
Rick6a said:
Okay, now for the good stuff. Item: When was the last time the United States Air Force or Navy ordered a tailwheel airplane? Item: During WWII, as many P-51 Mustangs were lost to training accidents as were destroyed in combat. How many of the total were lost to take off and landing accidents? The beautiful and majestic P-51 aside, what lessons on aircraft ground handling do you suppose were learned during the war years by our naturally conservative military leaders?

Actually, I think our naturally conservative military leaders probably learned that pointing a jet exhaust at the ground was not a good thing, hence no more taildraggers. :) Imagine, an F-15 (not an F-15"A") taking off from a dead stop using full afterburner. Now THAT would be something to see! :)

Not meant to rile anyone. Just having fun. I'm stilling debating 9 vs. 9a. Since I'm planning on putting a prop on my RV, rather than a jet, I can still choose either. Again, all in fun.

Steve
 
Not to mention the low average age and experience level of fighter pilots in World War Two no doubt led to the loss rates.
 
And let's not forget the other problems with tailwheels that are often overlooked -- prop strikes.

I flew down to SnF this year with Mike Stewart and TeamRV. The guys were taxiing out to do their flybys and Chuck "Strato" Stratman (gorgeous RV-8) was rolling a little fast. He hit the brakes and naturally as he did he pulled back on the stick, lifting the elevators (uh oh). At the exact moment that he pulled back, he got a huge wind gust from his 6 o'clock which picked his tail up. From my perspective, it looked like the airplane stood straight up on it's spinner and I was afraid he was going to go all the way over. A trike would have been a non-event.

I'm not saying that taildraggers are more dangerous or whatever as compared to trikes, but prop strikes due to wind are definately something that's not really a factor in the tri-gear models. On the flip side, I believe there have been a couple of tri-gears prop-strike because they got their nose wheel in a gopher hole or a rut (the gear didn't fail, but lowered the nose enough to strike the ground). and this is something the tail draggers don't really need to worry about.

I've said it before in this forum and I'll say it again -- for me the final decision maker was the cost to insure.
 
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
I'm stilling debating 9 vs. 9a. Since I'm planning on putting a prop on my RV, rather than a jet, I can still choose either.

I've heard the RV-9 actually makes a relatively poor taildragger. Because the wing is so efficient, I hear it floats like crazy in the flare unless you nail your airspeed. Any benefit of the -9 being able to "land shorter" than the other models (i.e. -7) goes out the window unless you nail that airspeed.

And the touchdown speed is going to be so low in a 3-point attitude that while the wings are still generating gobs of lift, the effectiveness of the tail, particularly the rudder, will diminish proportionately. Contrast that to a -7 or -8, where you're theoretically able to touch down 3-point at a higher speed -- and the tail is still effective. Landing a -9 taildragger in a crosswind sounds to me to be hairier, more prone, than any landing in a short wing model.

Let's say you choose to wheel land your -9 all the time. Ok, so you regain your tail effectiveness, but you still need to get that sucker slowed up to lower the tail. Lower it too soon, and that big efficient wing will have you flying again. And what we're left with is this -- you need to be going SLOWER (than a -7 or -8) in your -9 when you lower the tail. That makes you even more prone to side gusts.

I'm a tailwheel snob, but even I think an RV-9A makes more sense than an RV-9. If you're building a taildragger, go for the -7 or -8, which settle into the flare easier, and are much more capable performance-wise on the other end of the spectrum. Just my 2 cents.

If it's the efficiency/economy of the -9 that appeals to you, I agree that makes good sense. I just think the -9 taildragger might not be an ideal combination of characteristics.

Just my 2 cents, theoretical at that. Flame on if you disagree. I'm open to being corrected here.

)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
 
Jamie said:
And let's not forget the other problems with tailwheels that are often overlooked -- prop strikes.

That jogged the old memory! A few years ago at Oshkosh, I trotted to the Warbird area after viewing a crowd suddenly lurching in that direction. While taxiing, a rare and beautifully restored Warbird hit a depression in the soft sod within the fenced Warbird parking area and its forward momentum generated enough energy to tip the plane up on its main gear catching the sod with its propeller and instantly proceeded to launch one heck of a world class divot. As I looked at the muddied and bent and trashed propeller I thought "Geez, I cannot begin to imagine the costs, logistics, and manpower involved just to get this rare bird fitted with a new prop (not like you can buy 'em at Props R Us) and repaired enough fly back home."

Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
 
Rick, it works the other way too. I have a friend who is a retired consulting geologist, who contracted to oil drilling companies. He flew a Stinson 108-2 to the drilling sites. These sites had unimproved strips that the companies used. He was telling me, they hated to see nosewheel airplanes try to use them, because it tied the strip up while wreckage from nose gear collapses was being cleared away. He's seen several of them hauled out on trucks. The Canadians called them folding nose faces.

I've had my RV-6 on a private strip I won't go back to because it is too rough for my taste, but the airplane handled it OK. The longer I have this airplane, the more respect I have for it. How many airplanes can fly from a rough 1200' grass strip and still bang along at 165kts anytime you want it to?

Nosewheel.........Tailwheel, it's just what you like.

Bob S
 
Thanks Dan. That's actually a much better argument in favor of/opposed to tailwheel/trigear than I've seen elsewhere. If you're correct re: the flight characteristics of the -9 in 3pt attitude, that would change the dynamics of my decision. I do know that the -9 supposedly has a significantly greater amount of elevator authority than the -7/-8 given it's 10 foot width and constant chord, but since the -7 now uses the 9 rudder, rudder authority probably isn't any greater in the -9. I'll try to look into the issues you raise some more. Moreover, I'm not a snob about either configuration, since I am genuinely up in the air about it... just wish I could have both.

Somehow I've got to make this decision probably within the next 4 months, since I've got all summer off and wing kit ships in a week.

Steve

dan said:
I've heard the RV-9 actually makes a relatively poor taildragger. Because the wing is so efficient, I hear it floats like crazy in the flare unless you nail your airspeed. Any benefit of the -9 being able to "land shorter" than the other models (i.e. -7) goes out the window unless you nail that airspeed.

And the touchdown speed is going to be so low in a 3-point attitude that while the wings are still generating gobs of lift, the effectiveness of the tail, particularly the rudder, will diminish proportionately. Contrast that to a -7 or -8, where you're theoretically able to touch down 3-point at a higher speed -- and the tail is still effective. Landing a -9 taildragger in a crosswind sounds to me to be hairier, more prone, than any landing in a short wing model.

Let's say you choose to wheel land your -9 all the time. Ok, so you regain your tail effectiveness, but you still need to get that sucker slowed up to lower the tail. Lower it too soon, and that big efficient wing will have you flying again. And what we're left with is this -- you need to be going SLOWER (than a -7 or -8) in your -9 when you lower the tail. That makes you even more prone to side gusts.

I'm a tailwheel snob, but even I think an RV-9A makes more sense than an RV-9. If you're building a taildragger, go for the -7 or -8, which settle into the flare easier, and are much more capable performance-wise on the other end of the spectrum. Just my 2 cents.

If it's the efficiency/economy of the -9 that appeals to you, I agree that makes good sense. I just think the -9 taildragger might not be an ideal combination of characteristics.

Just my 2 cents, theoretical at that. Flame on if you disagree. I'm open to being corrected here.

)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
 
Last edited:
Back
Top