RV-10 vs C-182
vanlle2000 said:
I prefer the nose wheel airplanes for out of the way places because I can see where I am taxiing.
If we are talking RV-10 than any taidragger vs. nosedragger debate is moot, there is no taildragger RV-10 and none is planned.
I agree no model of RV is a real hardcore bush planes but they do OK on prepared dirt or gravel strips.
"A" model RV nose gears are nothing like a C-182. The RV nose gear is very flexible, both aft and side to side. Add the free castoring wheel of smaller diameter I would say apples and oranges. A C-182 by comparison has a much stronger and more stable nose gear. However in favor or the RV-10 is the power to weight ratio. If you are at light weight you can get to flying speed faster and put the weight on the wings and reduce the ground roll. So weight is another issue. The lighter the better.
Visibility in a RV-taildragger is very good if you have a cushion that puts you higher.
The fact is nose wheels do offer many advantages, but builders tend to accept the Pros of one configuration while justifing the Cons. Whether tipup/slider or taidragger/nosedragger, you have to take the good with the bad. There are many tri-gear bush planes, but they tend to have very large tires and very heavy duty struts. All in all, the "A" model RV's tend to do OK on dirt with aft CG and aft stick so the weight is off the nose wheel. As long as the "drag" load or rolling resistance on the uneven soft surface is not too great you are OK.
Regarding RV nose gears, many "A" models have flipped in soft unprepared fields, usually after a forced landing. I understand the RV-10 nose gear is stronger and uses a larger tire, which is all-good. Also the RV-10 does appear to sit higher. However the trailing castor makes the first thing going down the runway the front end of the castor fork, which is subject to hanging up on obstacles and holes, in other words, low ground clearance to solid gear parts that don't roll. Second is the physics. The CG on a nosedragger is forward of the main gear. When the nose gear drops into a hole you rotate about the main gear and you get "rotational inertia" which drives the gear down. Add the fact Van's nose gear is canted forward like a "poll vault" and is long, bent into a "S" and unstable. As the deflection increases (aft or side) the bending loads will increase. At a certain point the defection and load can increase to failure. In other words the greater the deflection, the greater the load, the more unstable the gear. None of this applies to a C-182.
The tail dragger is thought to be superior to the nose gear for soft fields, period. There is the obvious, the prop is out of the dirt further. Before you write that tail draggers can flip, I'll beat you to it; They can flip. However the main gear tires are bigger, the main gear legs stiffer and more stable and it has greater ground clearance than the nose gear. (Granted the wheel fairing is a source of hang-ups.) Therefore they will stand much larger obstacles and rolling resistance with out hanging up. If you dont' brake, use full aft stick the flip factor should be less with the tail dragger.
Cheers George