What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Do taildraggers have their cons too?

danielhv

danielhv

Well Known Member
Im curious... after reading this thread here on the 9A nose gear collapsing ( http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=30928 ) I am seriously considering learning to fly a tail wheel and building a -7. My question is this:

It seems like there is a "big debate" over rather or not the nose wheel on the -A models is rigid and sturdy enough... My impression is that its fine for paved runways, but not for rough turf. So, that being said... thats usually the first and only thing I have worrying me about the -A model. Is there a downfall to a tail wheel besides insurance? I mean, in comparison, do they flip over as easy or as often as a -A model? Are there certain quirks about the design like there is with the nose gears on the RV's? Or are they the "perfect storm" as far as looks, rigidity, utility, etc? Just trying to figure out which way to go. I was set on a -A, but not so set right now! :( Not looking for a debate on nose wheel vs tail wheel.... just trying to find out, is there anything about the tail wheel version that "should be fixed" or "shouldn't have designed it that way" etc.
 
Boy, is this topic sure to set off a firestorm!

Some facts to remember: from an mathematical standpoint, conventional gear are "dynamically unstable" because the center of gravity is behind the mains. Also, from an insurance standpoint, it's more costly to insure, so the insurance companies obviously believe there is more risk associated with conventional gear. Finally, no modern, production airplane has been designed as a taildragger for decades (Cessna/Cirrus/Diamond/Mooney/Beech all think that tricycle gear is the way to go).

On the other hand: taildraggers are COOL! They have a "little" more prop clearance over the ground in grass/rough field conditions. But darn it, having just 2 legs in that swept back position while you fly just looks better.

Bottom line: considering how well the RV series is designed, it comes down to personal preference.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Blastr42 said:
Boy, is this topic sure to set off a firestorm!

On the other hand: taildraggers are COOL! They have a "little" more prop clearance over the ground in grass/rough field conditions. But darn it, having just 2 legs in that swept back position while you fly just looks better.

Bottom line: considering how well the RV series is designed, it comes down to personal preference.

Jeff
Click to expand...

All Vans aircraft are "cool" because they perform so well. But, they are NOT the necessarily best looking due to the short Hershey bar wings; I personally like the looks of the 9A/10's wings best. IMHO, The best looking plane was the Spitfire.

I agree that the tandem RV's look better as a taildragger, I disagree with the side-by-sides where the front wheel looks more natural.

Does the TW really have more prop clearance? I thought it was the other way around...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
danielhv said:
Is there a downfall to a tail wheel besides insurance? I mean, in comparison, do they flip over as easy or as often as a -A model? Are there certain quirks about the design like there is with the nose gears on the RV's? Or are they the "perfect storm" as far as looks, rigidity, utility, etc?...
just trying to find out, is there anything about the tail wheel version that "should be fixed" or "shouldn't have designed it that way" etc.
Click to expand...
I found that insurance for my -9 was the same as my friend's -7A, with the only difference being he paid more to compensate for the higher hull value he set. We had the same number of hours so that wasn't it but I did have 150 hours TW time.

The only thing I don't like about the "stock TW" is the TW bracket so I bought one from Doug Bell and have been very happy with that minor change.

Blastr42 said:
Finally, no modern, production airplane has been designed as a taildragger for decades (Cessna/Cirrus/Diamond/Mooney/Beech all think that tricycle gear is the way to go).
Click to expand...
The guys who build the Husky might disagree with you here.

rtry9a said:
Does the TW really have more prop clearance? I thought it was the other way around...
Click to expand...
Yep, because the landing gear are longer and with the nose sticking up in the air, the prop tips are higher off the ground.

As for learning to fly a TW, it will take you about 10 hours to get the endorsement and another 10 to feel comfortable, same as when you first learned to fly a tricycle gear. One other thing, the RV is the easiest tail dragger I hever flown and I have six or seven different tail draggers.
 
The insurance gap is slim to non-existant these days....With the exception of the fact that you might be required to have more dual and definately a TW endorsement.
 
As for insurance, RV-7 TW 95K hull, Pilot 450 TT with 200+ TW, $1950 per year, actually lower than some similar timed RV-7A quotes.

The RV is a great taildragger, and is pretty easy to land. The TW are also lighter by a few (10-15 lbs) than are the Tricycle.

It is really a personal preference thing, but I would do a TW again in a heartbeat.
 
Lower landing speed for a trike?

When I took my $50k free ride up a Van's a few years ago, I was dead set on building a TW. I owned an Aeronca Sedan at that point and the vast majority of my hours are in a TW. Well, Ken at Van's made some good points about the NW design that switched me to a NW.

Kens says that if he were doing it all over he'd build himself a trike. He liked the better visibility and how very easy they are to land. One thing he pointed out that I never thought of is that the deck angle on landing for the trike is greater than that of the TW. This will allow you to get the nose up higher on landing and would get you a slightly lower touch down speed. I'm not sure how much of a difference we're talking about here (probably not much) but I told myself early on, if I had a decision to make I would side on the safer, more conservative route no matter how slight. Therefore, I'm building an -A.

Now that the nosewheel issues have surfaced do I regret my decision? Well, yea, kinda but I'm not losing sleep over it. I think I'm going to love my plane when I'm done.

Someone on this list put it very nicely and to paraphrase, build what's in your heart. Build what you want to see when you open that hangar door.

NW or TW, can there be anything cooler than travelling around in a flying machine that YOU built?
 
Nose Wheel versus Tail Wheel

Hello All
Not wanting to start a big debate looks mean nothing to me. Easy and lazy is not in my vocabulary. Can you say a RV has more than 10 rivets? The number 1 ad you see is one for insurance. People that are unable to keep the aircrafts attitude correct upon landing should build a -A. If you know that 1 time is all it takes to kill your self or wreck the plane you will go out and get more training on any thing.
 
It's all tailwheel all the time for me. Didn't even consider a trike.

1. Um, looks. duh!
2. less drag
3. probably most importantly, after #1, and a point that rarely gets mentioned, flying tailwheel is so **** fun!

By the way, I'm not a scientist and I didn't stay at the holiday inn express last night, but I think that most ground-loop accidents are relatively minor and that the reason TWs are more expensive to insure is that the insurance companies think it is more likely for a TW plane to get banged up a bit (which is true), not because they think that groundlooping is a common cause of fatal or major injury accidents.

I would add...

4. The RV nosewheel issues. Did you see that video of the nosewheel RV landing at OSH? Scary...
5. Prop clearance. Mine's gonna be a bush plane someday.
 
Do you mean, "do conventional gear *RV's* have their cons versus other conventional gear planes?"

If this is what you meant, then I'd have to say for a conventional gear airplane, RV's get an A or A+ in handling and design. And after some 1500 hrs in 10-12 make/model tailwheel planes, I haven't flown anything better.

Very effective and efficient design with excellent handling. No glaring weaknesses.

2 cents
 
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is Weight and Balance. If I recall correctly, the TW is slightly more aft-heavy than a nose wheel RV. Of course, this is based on a plans-built aircraft when comparing the two with similar options like C/S or fixed, etc.
 
Ok, now you guys have done it, here's my take. You build what you want. I have over 1000 hrs in tail wheel in the last 4 years. I'm building an A. Why? cus that's what I want, I hope to show the wife how to fly. I want vis out the front. One thing to remember, airplanes don't cause crashes, the human behind the panel does. Even a so called crash can be controlled. Just to let you know, there are at least 3 Rv's at my field that are being rebuilt because of ground loops. Not saying that ground loops are a problem with RV's ,again the human factor is involved here. There is no way I'm giving up on a tail wheel, I just got back from an excursion into the back woods with the kitfox and I'll tell ya, I wouldn't take a tail wheel rv back where I went. I'm keeping my kitty. Just build what you want and remember you can bend any airplane if you don't treat it right.
 
lostpilot28 said:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is Weight and Balance. If I recall correctly, the TW is slightly more aft-heavy than a nose wheel RV. Of course, this is based on a plans-built aircraft when comparing the two with similar options like C/S or fixed, etc.
Click to expand...
I believe you have this backwards. Most -7A's are tail heavy because the mains are behind the CG. Even with the little wheel way back there, the mains more than make up for it.

More than one -7A builder has had to switch from a wood to metal prop to balance the thing out.
 
To many openions.. How to decide.

Danial, I guess by now you see how alike all RV builders are.

I would recommend a little research out side of this forum. To many examples on insurance cost. Call you insurance company and get them to quote you on both TW and NW. To many factors cloud comparing my insurance rate ($1700.00) with someone else's.

But it does look like most of us agree that no matter which way you go, you will like flying the plane and that it is mostly a personal choice.

Kent
 
downside of taildraggers

the only downfall I have found in 2000 hours of T/W flying is my grin is ussually so big it makes my eyes squint and I cant see the runway ahead of me too well.:D
 
174Bob&Nancy said:
the only downfall I have found in 2000 hours of T/W flying is my grin is ussually so big it makes my eyes squint and I cant see the runway ahead of me too well.:D
Click to expand...
hahahahaha

One other advantage to tail draggers is they are easier to get in out of as you can just step up on the wing.

Also, you don't have to worry about two people standing on the steps at the same time and the thing sitting down on its tail, causing damage to the elevator.
 
danielhv said:
I am seriously considering learning to fly a tail wheel and building a -7.
Click to expand...

excellent plan!! TW are a blast, and very rewarding to fly, BUT it appears that you may have never flown one or at least gotten instruction in one..

wait until after you get some training, before you decide to commit to building one..

and i know there's a few TD's for sale from guys on this site.. maybe you could pick up one of them for time building while you build your -7.
 
As mentioned previously; the short and fat RV wings "ain't" exactly the purdiest......

The taildragging side by sides show this bit of un-sleekness more prominately than the nose jobs. Kind of like a squatting animal doing it's thing! :D

However, all 8's must be taildraggers and painted like P-51's! I differ from the Spit guy, and think that the North American P-51D is the best looking aircraft ever produced! I even painted my 6A to look like a P-51. As it sits a bit tail low compared to newer offerings; and I just have to stand in front of the nose wheel for photos....

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
L.Adamson said:
I differ from the Spit guy, and think that the North American P-51D is the best looking aircraft ever produced!
L.Adamson -- RV6A
Click to expand...

I gotta disagree with ya here Adamson! The F4U Corsair I believe is the best looking aircraft ever. :D

I'll add my $.02 also about tailwheelies... my -4 has a 360 with a hartzell up front. Add 30 gallons of gas and my skinny butt sitting just behind the spar doesn't do much for weight behind the c/g. Full stall landings or my 2 drawer toolbox in the WAY back is a must! I can see how flipping a nose heavy -4 is probably just as easy as flipping an -a model on soft grass.
 
L.Adamson said:
As mentioned previously; the short and fat RV wings "ain't" exactly the purdiest......

The taildragging side by sides show this bit of un-sleekness more prominately than the nose jobs. Kind of like a squatting animal doing it's thing!...
Click to expand...
Well, everyone has their opinion.

I remember flying my Piper Pacer over to Hicks Field, in Texas, to get my transition training with Mike Seager. When I got there that worn RV-6 was just sitting in the grass with no one around. I didn't think it looked like it was relieving itself, I thought it looked perky. I walked around and around it and couldn't get over just how cool it looked. "Man, I'm really building one of these!"

I actually think the RV-3 and RV-4 are the nicest looking RVs but I am real real happy with how my RV-6 looks and flys. Real real happy!

GJT.jpg
 
Last edited:
n5lp said:
I actually think the RV-3 and RV-4 are the nicest looking RVs but I am real real happy with how my RV-6 looks and flys. Real real happy!

GJT.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a good looking pic! :) The squatting RV's just don't look their best from the back view, as it's a full display of those short aspect ratio wings. Even the "8" in full military garb, has a few angles that don't do photo's well, thanks to the ratio of canopy size to airplane. But make it a Rocket or F1, and they can just look plain "mean". Even with a foot or so cut off of the wings! :D And yes, the tapered EVO wing looks even better!

Yes, looks DO count, and tailwheel side by sides look better in the air. The nose job just helps that "fat wing" from being so darn noticable on the ground! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N941WR said:
I believe you have this backwards. Most -7A's are tail heavy because the mains are behind the CG. Even with the little wheel way back there, the mains more than make up for it.

More than one -7A builder has had to switch from a wood to metal prop to balance the thing out.
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,
I was trying to make the point that a "plans built" airplane would be slightly more aft heavy in the TW config. I still think that's the case. Your point may be correct, however that some -A models need extra weight up front...but without knowing how those were built, it's a moot point. Of course anyone can build either a TW or a NW aft heavy, but I think on any given airframe, the TW is slightly more.

I also see your point about the mains being behind the CG, but they're very close to it and have a very small moment-arm. The tail-wheel and associated hardware are pretty heavy and have as much of a moment-arm as you can possibly have on an RV. That weight is quite influential to the W&B way back there.
 
L.Adamson said:
As mentioned previously; the short and fat RV wings "ain't" exactly the purdiest......

I differ from the Spit guy, and think that the North American P-51D is the best looking aircraft ever produced!

L.Adamson -- RV6A
Click to expand...

The 51 is my favorite WWII fighter, but the belly scoop hurts the overall lines imho- looks like a pregnant guppy:rolleyes:. I really like the 51-s wing shape from below. Overall, I still prefer the looks of the Spitfire and the German 109 from the side.

Rudy's plane is attractive- that paint scheme helps to "narrow out" the short wide wing and lengthen the fuselage. Love that shade of red!
 
Last edited:
Rocket said:
a VERY VERY good looking -7 TW..

and IMHO don't look to short or fat in these pics... even from above and behind

great looking plane Rudi!!
Click to expand...
That's a fine looking plane! Might borrow some of that paint scheme for my next project....
 
ArVeeNiner said:
When I took my $50k free ride up a Van's a few years ago, I was dead set on building a TW. I owned an Aeronca Sedan at that point and the vast majority of my hours are in a TW. Well, Ken at Van's made some good points about the NW design that switched me to a NW.

Kens says that if he were doing it all over he'd build himself a trike. He liked the better visibility and how very easy they are to land. One thing he pointed out that I never thought of is that the deck angle on landing for the trike is greater than that of the TW. This will allow you to get the nose up higher on landing and would get you a slightly lower touch down speed. I'm not sure how much of a difference we're talking about here (probably not much) but I told myself early on, if I had a decision to make I would side on the safer, more conservative route no matter how slight. Therefore, I'm building an -A.

Now that the nosewheel issues have surfaced do I regret my decision? Well, yea, kinda but I'm not losing sleep over it. I think I'm going to love my plane when I'm done.

Someone on this list put it very nicely and to paraphrase, build what's in your heart. Build what you want to see when you open that hangar door.

NW or TW, can there be anything cooler than travelling around in a flying machine that YOU built?
Click to expand...

I had most of the same talk with Ken (didn't catch his last name, big guy, facial hair i think, glasses?) I'm still going with a tail wheel at this point, even though Ken said he's done TO and landings with NW on grass fields all the time.
 
Ok, so let me ask another question... Is there a particular gear configuration that is better suited for fat ppl? :D Im 6'4, 240lbs, and my dad is 6'3, 235lbs... I'd imagine he'd be flying with me alot... possible even an occasional 280lb best friend! (Perhaps I should spend more money on building instead of eating!) That being said, will the -7 handle the weight better since it wont be adding weight to the nose gear?
 
danielhv said:
Ok, so let me ask another question... Is there a particular gear configuration that is better suited for fat ppl? :D Im 6'4, 240lbs, and my dad is 6'3, 235lbs... I'd imagine he'd be flying with me alot... possible even an occasional 280lb best friend! (Perhaps I should spend more money on building instead of eating!) That being said, will the -7 handle the weight better since it wont be adding weight to the nose gear?
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that the "A" models support your body weight better. The main mass of your body weight is slightly behind the main wheels, and behind the CG. I'd say that the mains of a trike see less stress than the mains of a taildragger due to the close position of body weight. In fact, the position of the wheels of a trike would support the weight of the fuel load with less stress too!

The main mass of your body weight behind the CG and main wheels is also offsetting the much smaller portion of your legs that rest in front of the spar, which is the approximate CG.

edit:

After a review of the aircraft diagrams, and the fact that I built a 6A; and know how the tri-gear mains attach to the main spar for the 6,7, and 9A models.................I'd say that the A's have a definite strength advantage over the 6.7. and 9's when it comes to supporting the pilot, passenger, and fuel weights. The "8" taildraggers are totally different.

The "A"'s got to have an advantage somewhere.........don't they? Besides the fact the forward vision on the ground is better, handling cross-winds is better, and even the turning radius is tighter! :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Last edited:
John Clark said:
'Fraid not... With the tailwheel out of the detent and 90 degrees to the fuselage the taildragger wins.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The Van's demo's show how the trike can revolve around it's "locked" right or left wheel in a tighter radius than the more forward wheels of the taildragger.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
To stick my nose in hear:DI was with a couple of RVers a while back and two moderate size fellas went to leave and they both tried to get in a 7A at the same time and smacked the tail on the ground:eek:
Taildragger would not of had that issue:D Honestly build what you are comfortable with, but I would recommend the taildragger.
 
KirkGrovesRV8 said:
To stick my nose in hear:DI was with a couple of RVers a while back and two moderate size fellas went to leave and they both tried to get in a 7A at the same time and smacked the tail on the ground:eek:
Click to expand...

Which is why the A models can rotate quicker than the draggers too! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
danielhv said:
Ok, so let me ask another question... Is there a particular gear configuration that is better suited for fat ppl? :D Im 6'4, 240lbs, and my dad is 6'3, 235lbs... I'd imagine he'd be flying with me alot... possible even an occasional 280lb best friend! (Perhaps I should spend more money on building instead of eating!) That being said, will the -7 handle the weight better since it wont be adding weight to the nose gear?
Click to expand...

At Oshkosh yesterday I asked a Van's rep if a friend and I could sit in the -7A to see how we fit. I'm 180# and my friend is 270. He said they don't like to let guys over 250 get in the plane. I asked why and he explained it is due to the strength of the wing in the step area as well as the seat area. It also makes me wonder how strong the floor in front of the seats is. Just something to consider...
 
Of course the TW's have downsides. But if you are current in them, they don't randomly flip over or collapse their nosegear.
 
jetrep said:
At Oshkosh yesterday I asked a Van's rep if a friend and I could sit in the -7A to see how we fit. I'm 180# and my friend is 270. He said they don't like to let guys over 250 get in the plane. I asked why and he explained it is due to the strength of the wing in the step area as well as the seat area. It also makes me wonder how strong the floor in front of the seats is. Just something to consider...
Click to expand...

I'd never put full weight on the floor ahead of the seats. It isn't built that robust, and would just add weight if it was. I support my weight between the seats and wheel tower.

L.Adamson ---- 227 lbs., but would prefer to get back to 205, and even 180. We'd fit better, climb better, and use less fuel. :)
 
Larry, just drill some lightening holes....

L.Adamson said:
L.Adamson ---- 227 lbs., but would prefer to get back to 205, and even 180. We'd fit better, climb better, and use less fuel. :)
Click to expand...

Kent - 240 lbs. Let me know how it works out.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top