What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Stirring the debate again

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just could not leave the dust settled on this subject :D

I know that nose wheel vs tailwheel is a "heated" debate that has been beat to death, but after seeing the thread on the challenges of landing a tailwheel I thank the good Lord that I put a nose wheel on my plane. I built my plane to be a fun flying and a good cross country machine, not something that challenges me every time I land. The choice is up to the builder!

I have been looking thru the NTSB archives and if you remove the flip-overs that were solely pilot error (landed hot, landed long, failed to hold back pressure on elevator, etc.), which would of caused issues with a tailwheel aircraft, including engine out off airport landings, the nose wheel has the same chances of staying upright on the landing just as the tailwheel.

Now with the above said, I do firmly believe that the tailwheel aircraft is a sexier plane when setting on the ground hands down, but I do not regret the direction I have gone.

As with all post, this is just my .02.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm!

My RV9A has just been written off following an engine stoppage in the circuit. It was force landed in a very small field, took out a couple of trees and then flipped as it crossed a small road ending up standing on its spinner. The only thing that stopped it going inverted was an electric supply cable that hooked the fin. The pilot escaped with a cut thumb!!

I am firmly of the belief like you that the majority of flip overs are pilot errors but ones like this are largely out of the pilots hands and you cannot simply take them out of the equation.

Tailwheels are more of a challenge to land but if I do rebuild this aeroplane it will probably be as a tailwheel.
 
My RV9A has just been written off following an engine stoppage in the circuit. It was force landed in a very small field, took out a couple of trees and then flipped as it crossed a small road ending up standing on its spinner.

Steve,

Very sorry to hear of the loss of your -9A but glad there were no serious injuries.

We would be very interested in hearing details about the engine stoppage since you were flying an engine that looked to offer a valid option in powerplants. If you wish to share you might begin a different thread so the subject could be devoted to your experiences.

Best wishes on either rebuilding or procuring a new plane!
 
I just could leave the dust settled on this subject :D

I built my plane to be a fun flying and a good cross country machine, not something that challenges me every time I land...

Most of us found "every" landing a challenge at the beginning of our flying. Eventually though, we "got it" and it became no problem, right?

Well, the same thing happens to tailwheel pilots. I still have challenging landings at times, but I can't remember the last time that I thought a tailwheel was a compelling factor. Once you get it, it's no problem.
 
I just could leave the dust settled on this subject :D


Now with the above said, I do firmly believe that the tailwheel aircraft is a sexier plane when setting on the ground hands down...

Oh CM, this opening was just too wide for me to resist. IMO, the nose gear models are just as ugly flying as they are on the ground. :D

Just helping you stir the pot!! Hey, they're all great airplanes.:)

Cheers,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always thought that the short aspect ratio wings of the RV6 looked sleeker on the ground, as a nosewheel 6A. I'd call the 6.... a "squatting dog", compared to a Greyhound ready to go on all fours.

Of course, after wiping out my nose gear (didn't flip).....the squatting dog started to look much better. I was converting to a tail wheel, when I just gave up on the whole idea, due to medical issues.

What it comes down to, is that we just change our minds. Many people like a variety. Quite frankly, a sleek Lear would look silly as a taildragger. And would look awful with it's wheels hanging down in flight.
 
Steve sorry to hear. Nose or tail we can flip any airplane easy. I've seen a flipped taildragger recently.

We need more training. Especially those who fly a lot and often. Sometimes I don't remember how I landed this thing. I propose BFR every SIX month for frequent flyers. :D
 
Quite frankly, a sleek Lear would look silly as a taildragger. And would look awful with it's wheels hanging down in flight.

LOL, what timing, just this morning I was PROUDLY showing a friend a photo of my 34CB flying; and he immediately said "Too bad you can't retract the gear.":mad:

Yes Steve I'm saddened to hear about your 9A!! I'm growing very fond of their high flying capabilities. And, I'm saddened to hear of damage to anyone's bird. Love em all.

Hope you get her mended & back in the air soon.
 
Engine stoppage

Thanks for the expressions of regret......


As to what caused the engine to stop producing power we do not know yet. The pilot had switched tanks on the downwind leg, shortley after no power but engine windmilling. He switched back tanks and attempted restart but failed.

Then having lost height was committed to a forced landing. No sign of water or anything that contributed in the right tank. Left tank was burst open by a tree but some fuel still remained which was OK.

We will strip the engine when the insurance has paid out to see if this was a factor and whether the switching tanks was a red herring. The Guys in the UK RVUK group have been very good not speculating on this!!

I may post photos on my blog in the next few days. Am busy finishing my 4 at the moment.
 
My 7 started as an A model but converted it after flying 6 years.
TW models looks better, IMHO
Easier entry/exit from the cabin.
Gets off the ground quicker.
Taxiing visibility, no big deal.
No Nose gear maintenance or concerns.
Added 2mph cruise speed.
Easier to clean the canopy.

TW model a bit more noisy on landing due to gear being forward of the wing.
Landing is more challenging.

All in all, I'm happy I made the change.
No regrets.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the expressions of regret......


As to what caused the engine to stop producing power we do not know yet. The pilot had switched tanks on the downwind leg, shortley after no power but engine windmilling. He switched back tanks and attempted restart but failed.

Then having lost height was committed to a forced landing. No sign of water or anything that contributed in the right tank. Left tank was burst open by a tree but some fuel still remained which was OK.

We will strip the engine when the insurance has paid out to see if this was a factor and whether the switching tanks was a red herring. The Guys in the UK RVUK group have been very good not speculating on this!!

I may post photos on my blog in the next few days. Am busy finishing my 4 at the moment.

Any chance that switching tanks without near or close to full power can cause problems ? I have wondered this because I switched tanks not long before my engine out as well, thoughts ? Yeah my fuel pump was on but just throwing it out there
 
Last edited:
Why do they even offer an 8 A , never saw a 4A, 3A .
Tom

Having recently purchased an -8A (and loving it) I can tell you one major reason is insurance cost.

The insurance quotes on the -A model were dramatically less than on the -8. Unless we are to believe that insurance companies don't know what they're doing, or how to make money, I would say that this is a pretty good indication of which model has more insurance claims.
 
Insurance

I second that on the insurance. USAA just started covering the Vans A models this year, and I got a better rate with my 6a over my old -3
 
.....The insurance quotes on the -A model were dramatically less than on the -8. ....

what kind of numbers are we talking about?

I'm getting ready to renew my insurance and wonder if the cost difference (Nose vs Tail) is really a factor.

my -7 with $80K hull, pilot=480hrs TT, 220hrs in type, 280TW hours is about $1300.
 
Less time to build?

After spending 6 hours today cutting the slot and fitting the exit air bracket on the slot in the cowl behind the nose gear leg, it dawned on me that there is pry some 50 or so (who knows?) less hours in building a tailwheel.

- No nose wheel, gear leg, fairing, or modification to the cowl required.
- The -A model main gear towers inside the cockpit also make it a real treat to run the fuel/brake lines, wires and fitting the wing bolts.
- can't sit on the gear without engine or counterweight in place and must support the tail when crawling inside.
- I got the vetterman 1.5" exhaust with mufflers and they are an extremely tight fit inside the cowl and adjacent to the engine mount/bolts. I would surmise that the lack of a nose gear support here on the engine mount would have freed up some space.
 
I blame Vans

I blame Vans. If they never introduced an -A model, you would all be flying a tailwheel, having more fun, looking sexier, getting the girls and wondering what all the fuss was about. However, I accept that there are some un-talented uncoordinated pilots out there who don't know how to keep a plane straight with rudder so I guess the -A model does serve a purpose ;)
 
?......I accept that there are some un-talented uncoordinated pilots out there who don't know how to keep a plane straight with rudder so I guess the -A model does serve a purpose ;)

Sort of harsh isn't? I can fly a tailwheel, however I elect to fly an -6A. Your logic about tailwheels could be said about people who drive vehicles with automatic transmissions, power steering, electric starters, etc.. :D
 
What's funny is this debate extends throughout aviation:

- Tailwheel RVers look down on nosewheels
- Certificated aircraft owners look down on homebuilts
- Twin drivers look down on singles
- Turboprop drivers look down on pistons
- Jet jockeys look down on pop-driven aircraft

It really is silly, and counterproductive. For GA to survive, we're gonna all have to hang together.

We are all flying -- and RVs are the best in class, no matter where the landing gear is located! :D
 
What's funny is this debate extends throughout aviation:

- Tailwheel RVers look down on nosewheels
- Certificated aircraft owners look down on homebuilts
- Twin drivers look down on singles
- Turboprop drivers look down on pistons
- Jet jockeys look down on pop-driven aircraft

It really is silly, and counterproductive. For GA to survive, we're gonna all have to hang together.

We are all flying -- and RVs are the best in class, no matter where the landing gear is located! :D

Well said!
 
What's funny is this debate extends throughout aviation:

- Tailwheel RVers look down on nosewheels
- Certificated aircraft owners look down on homebuilts
- Twin drivers look down on singles
- Turboprop drivers look down on pistons
- Jet jockeys look down on pop-driven aircraft

It really is silly, and counterproductive. For GA to survive, we're gonna all have to hang together.

There are plenty of examples out there to debunk these stereotypes.:rolleyes: I know an F-22 test pilot (jet jockey) that owns an RV-4; Three instructors at Edwards Test Pilot School (also jet jockeys), one with a Glasair, one with a Bearhawk, and one with a C-180; my Dad (retired jet and turboprop jockey) owned a C-310 and a Stearman, and greatly enjoyed both for their specific missions; I own a C-170 and am building an RV-7. If anything, I look down on the EAB guys that trash "certified" airplanes (aren't homebuilts "certified" in the EAB category?)

We are all flying -- and RVs are the best in class, no matter where the landing gear is located! :D
I do whole heartedly agree with that last statement though.:)
 
Judge not lest thou be judged...

When I bought my RV4 tail kit Van didn't offer Side By Side or trikes (A's). I thought at the time the RV4 was the best looking civilian light plane I had seen but I built it for total performance, not curb appeal. It gave me the exact same economy as my T-Craft at twice the speed and I could do aerobatics and still operate from my Dad's 1000' grass strip. Builders strived for high performance on low bucks, light weight and speed tricks that didn't cost alot. This used to be the "RV appeal". Times as they say, have changed...

Van wisely caved to the market demand and many other inputs to offer a SBS trike (6A) to appeal to the masses, even though all of us builders at the time thought (and still think) it resembled a Grumman AA-1. 7000+ completed airframes later he is the most successful kitplane mfg in history and more people have been exposed to a great design. Hard to argue with success.

Of course there are only 2 types of aircraft, fighters and targets...:)

V/R
Smokey

RV4 sold
Harmon Rocket Sold
RVX flying alot!
F16, missed greatly
 
Last edited:
Tailwheels for me!

OK, I will play.

I have a tailwheel airplane for 2 reasons. 1) so I could build tailwheel time so that I can fly the Pawnee towplane at the glider club and 2) so I don't have to explain to other (spam can) pilots that my plane's not a 'Grumman Yankee'. :rolleyes:
 
As Brian pointed out, the TW insurance penalty is a myth, particularly once you build some time.

However, the real reason I built mine as a tail dragger is so I could fly some cool planes. I have done bi-annuals in a J3, a Stearman, and a DH Chipmunk. None of fhat would have been possible without my TW endorsement and a fist full of TW time.
 
Back to the OP's point, you can't remove the data and then use that to justify a position. The fact is that both NW and TW planes are a "challenge" to land, just in different ways. Just pick your trade offs and go with them.

That said, there have been several things that have influenced my decision to go TW. One of them being the interesting observation that the NW rentals that I fly have many small chips and dings on their prop blades, but the cub I rent has a prop that is almost pristine, despite the fact it gets landed on grass and gravel.

In any case, choose your trade offs and stick with 'em. Personally I think the coolest RV is an RV8 slider with a 200 HP angle valve and a CS prop. What I am building, though, is an RV9 (TW) tip up O320 with a FP (or maybe CS) because cool is not the only deciding factor. In the end they are all cool in their own way though, even the 172 rentals.

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top