|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

05-23-2010, 10:05 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wilsonville, OR
Posts: 453
|
|
Tricycle or Tailwheel...?
My intent is not to start any type of wars here. I'm finishing up the wings for my planned RV-7A, but am having some question as to the strength of the nosewheel after hearing and reading about several tip-over accidents (nose gear failures).
My initial reason for wanting the -7A was more capabilities in IFR (higher crosswind components). I fly a C-140 and love tailwheel aircraft!! It has nothing to do with liking one over the other, but rather my initial assumption that the -7A could do more and go more places in higher winds.
But after reading a lot on the forums about how delicate you must be with the tricycle gear, I wonder if either model really has any advantage over the other. Is my initial assumption about the -7A being able to land in higher crosswinds incorrect due to the fact that you must be incredibly careful to make very good landings in it each and every time?
I know there are some mods to bring the nosewheel up a bit and to create somewhat of a skid in the nosewheel fairing.
I'm about to commit to a fuselage kit and must decide. I think the -7 is sexier on the ramp, and am beginning to think it may be safer due to the lack of nosewheel issue. Looking for any help, advice, tips, something that can help sway me one way or another. If the nosewheel design is fundamentally flawed and weak, I really don't want to go that route. I know I'd be happy with either airframe, but I do want the one that will provide the most safety and capabilities in all conditions (soft fields, higher winds..etc)
__________________
________
Trevor Conroy CFII, MEI
Airbus Pilot
N781TD
RV-7
First Flight - April 12, 2015
Construction Log
|

05-23-2010, 10:18 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 988
|
|
gear leg mount takes up cabin leg space too...
there are plenty of calamities that can kick you in a taildragger but the number of nose gear failures was a factor for me in transitioning away from the tri-gear model. another notable factor for me is the loss of leg space in the cabin from the gear mount... it is quite a bit of an impact if you want to pull your legs back during cruise. in the end i am sure that i would have grown comfortable with it but it was a factor for me.
during construction there have been many times when access into the fuselage has been much easier with a taildragger than it would be with the tail up... routinely i managed to just reach in and down where it would have required climbing in and out, a platform, or a second person.
__________________
Stephen
RV7 powered by a lycoming thunderbolt IO-390
turning a whirlwind HRT prop
with more hours flying than building... 2,430 on the hobbs!
ORCA Flight
Race 771
margarita!
|

05-23-2010, 10:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bozeman, Montana
Posts: 858
|
|
Noseover Rates are the Same
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear models. Hope that helps.
Hans
|

05-24-2010, 12:04 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Townsend, Montana
Posts: 3,179
|
|
I just spent 3 days with Mike Seager in Oregon. The grass strip we flew off of looks beautiful and in great shape. But was rough enough to bounce us in the air on roll out. I was flying 477RV a taildragging -7, but noticed the blue -6a looked to be a pretty good shape. No nosewheel damage that I could see  . Maybe Mike is just lucky, but I'd wager money it's technique. Give him a call, he'll be straight up with you. If you want to know about flying RV's, Mike is the man.
Vernonia Airport midfield looking west
my trusty steed for 3 days

__________________
Retired Dam guy. Life is good.
Brian, N155BKsold but bought back.
|

05-24-2010, 05:44 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Oaks, MN
Posts: 341
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucleus
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear models. Hope that helps.
Hans
|
Really Hans... Can you post a link to "the report"? I haven't seen that yet?
- Peter
__________________
Peter Fruehling
St. Paul, Minnesota - Based at ANE
RV-4 - Sold
RV-7 - Sold
RV-10 - Partners in N829EC
2019 Dues Paid - Have you paid yours?
|

05-24-2010, 05:58 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 2,053
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCONROY
My initial reason for wanting the -7A was more capabilities in IFR (higher crosswind components).
|
Does anyone have actual crosswind numbers in the tail wheel VS nose wheel? I can't imagine it's any difference.
__________________
Tony Phillips
N524AP, RV 9 (tail wheel)
|

05-24-2010, 06:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Walterboro SC
Posts: 153
|
|
I have a C170B and I built a RV9 Taildragger because I like to fly tailwheels. I also like the looks of the taildragger models a little better. The nose gear problems on the RV's reinforced my decision, and in case of an engine failure and an off field landing I thought the tailwheel would handle it better. The insurance is a little higher priced for a tailwheel. The taildragger 9 is a bit of a learning curve to get it to plant itself on landings but the takeoffs are a breeze but a good bit more rudder is required for takeoffs due to it's light weight and engine torque. It is definitely harder to land than my 170 as far a a smooth touchdown is concerned but it is easy to handle once it is planted with less tendency to ground loop than the 170 has. Overall I am very happy with the taildragger. I think the shorter wing models are a little easier to plant on landing as there is less wing area to cause floating or bouncing. The gear legs are springy and will launch you into the air again if you let it drop in from any altitude at all. Botched landings are very easy to recover from, any addition of power makes the plane fly again. Airspeed control on final and a lot of patience in the flare is necessary to make the taildraggers land smooth. You can't force them down as you can a Cessna. Definitely more tecnique is required for landing the rv's but it is a fun learning curve. Building the taildragger is a little easier since there are no gear mounts to put in the fuselage and no nose gear or wheel fairing to assemble.
__________________
Jim Poe
RV9 First Flight 2/23/09
s/n 91416
|

05-24-2010, 07:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,219
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by apkp777
Does anyone have actual crosswind numbers in the tail wheel VS nose wheel? I can't imagine it's any difference.
|
There are no published numbers. If you do a search in this forum or search the Matronics archives, you'll find plenty of anecdotal information, including some amazing claims.
In the end, it is probably more driven by pilot technique than where the little wheel is located.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

05-24-2010, 08:00 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mendon South Carolina
Posts: 1,391
|
|
Quote:
|
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear
|
What report? Published and written by who? Based on information derived from what source? What is the definition of rates?
The only databases I am awre of are FAA and NTSB. The problems in comparing rates in this particular case stem from the number of TDs vs the number of Trigears flying. Also the circumstances of the noseover. Off airport landings on other than smooth flat surfaces often end up as noseovers no matter the gear type but I believe the main interest re: RVs are the noseovers on actual runways.
Anecdotaly I have read about lot's of instances of RV noseovers (on airport) but do not recall any of them being taildraggers.
I would love to see the report.
__________________
Milt Concannon
Last edited by N395V : 05-24-2010 at 08:16 AM.
|

05-24-2010, 08:25 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,125
|
|
The majority of my time logged is TW but I went NW. Many years ago when I went on my $40k free ride, both Ken Scott and Van said that they prefer the NW. Ken liked the better visibility and both liked the fact that the geometry of the gear legs allows you to get the tail down lower on landing.
Of course I made my choice before I was aware of the nose overs in the trikes. The new nose fork design and perhaps better pilot technique seem to have quieted this tendency down a lot. I am aware of an incident in San Diego a couple years ago which didn't result in a nose over and then I saw one posted here recently about a nose over but I believe it was due to an issue on landing. Still, an off field emergency landing in a NW airplane will probably have a bigger tendency to land you on your back I would think.
Both the NW and TW will work well for the flying I do. In my opinion, both look dead sexy but in different ways!
__________________
Kelly Johnson
San Jose, CA
RV-9A
Pink slip issued: 5/7/12
First flight: 5/28/12, Memorial Day.
Phase I Complete: 8/18/12!
2020 donation: complete
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 AM.
|