To Tailwheel or not to Tailwheel

[MED]

I fly my 14A at 170 kts most of the time. 2 - 3 kts gained in a tail wheel would be about 2%, which works out to a little over 1 minute per hour of flight. I don?t know about your time constraints, but that difference is invisible to me.

[Bavafa]

I on the other hand aim to see how frugally I can fly. Most of my x-country flying is up high and usually around 160-162knots where I burn 7.5G. If I aim to go at 170knots, I most likely will have to make another stop for fuel which makes the overall trip actually longer and my pocket thinner.

[MED]

Originally Posted by Bavafa

I on the other hand aim to see how frugally I can fly. Most of my x-country flying is up high and usually around 160-162knots where I burn 7.5G. If I aim to go at 170knots, I most likely will have to make another stop for fuel which makes the overall trip actually longer and my pocket thinner.

Good point, but my biological limit is about 3 hours, so . . .

[rwthompson67]

Originally Posted by Bavafa

I on the other hand aim to see how frugally I can fly. Most of my x-country flying is up high and usually around 160-162knots where I burn 7.5G. If I aim to go at 170knots, I most likely will have to make another stop for fuel which makes the overall trip actually longer and my pocket thinner.

[f14av8r]

If we are all honest with each other, we'll admit that the only real reason for building a tailwheel version of any Van's aircraft is looks, ego, and those all important style points!

How many tailwheel airliners do you see out on the ramp today? There is a reason the answer is ZERO.

I love my RV-8 and wouldn't have it any other way. I'm a retired Fighter Pilot, so style points are important to me!

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by f14av8r

If we are all honest with each other, we'll admit that the only real reason for building a tailwheel version of any Van's aircraft is looks, ego, and those all important style points!

How many tailwheel airliners do you see out on the ramp today? There is a reason the answer is ZERO.

I love my RV-8 and wouldn't have it any other way. I'm a retired Fighter Pilot, so style points are important to me!

+1. for honesty. I think it's Shakespeare, "To thine own self be true". Or as everyone else says, "Build what you want".

[JonJay]

I personally find the tail wheel airplane more challenging and fun and also prefer the looks. took up flying to challenge myself. I flew antiques that required much more skill than an RV, so stepping back to a nose wheel just won’t happen for me.
Tailwheel airplanes open up an entire new regime of landing and ground handling techniques, especially in tough conditions.

If you want to challenge yourself throughout your flying “career”, and enjoy more learning and honing of skill sets.... tailwheel it will be.

Personally, I don’t get the ego argument. I wanted, and want, the challenge for myself. Anybody making this kind of choice based on ego is probably going to be a statistic someday....

[Taltruda]

Originally Posted by f14av8r

If we are all honest with each other, we'll admit that the only real reason for building a tailwheel version of any Van's aircraft is looks, ego, and those all important style points!

How many tailwheel airliners do you see out on the ramp today? There is a reason the answer is ZERO.

I love my RV-8 and wouldn't have it any other way. I'm a retired Fighter Pilot, so style points are important to me!

I disagree about the ego or style points. Looks, yes. I love the way the tailwheel version looks, and hate how the nosewheel version looks. But the tailwheel versions are more fun to takeoff and land, more versatile, faster, lighter, more challenging (which make it more rewarding) to fly. I would not turn down a nosewheel 172 or 182.. they have their place, but I don?t get the point of an ?a? model RV, or the nosewheel carbon cub thing. I hope someone buys that carbon cub abomination and converts it back to conventional gear!

[Discus2b]

Originally Posted by rwthompson67

Why so much left aileron trim?

R

[Bavafa]

Originally Posted by Taltruda

I disagree about the ego or style points. Looks, yes. I love the way the tailwheel version looks, and hate how the nosewheel version looks. But the tailwheel versions are more fun to takeoff and land, more versatile, faster, lighter, more challenging (which make it more rewarding) to fly. I would not turn down a nosewheel 172 or 182.. they have their place, but I don?t get the point of an ?a? model RV, or the nosewheel carbon cub thing. I hope someone buys that carbon cub abomination and converts it back to conventional gear!

That's what it is, a personal taste and preference. I personally don't like the look of a tail dragger, don't see the appeal at all but that is my taste in looks and does not make it right or wrong.