It just took a ride to decide

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by robertahegy

This thread was meant to be a fun, non serious bantering of nosegear VS tailwheel opinions. Both are great and both can be misused. Both are beautiful, afterall, they are RVs!! Please!!! No bloodshed. Keep it fun.

Roberta

And so right you are!!!

That "4" with the retracts is the best looking of all!

L.Adamson

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Originally Posted by Jconard

I chose the taildragger because I wanted some chance of surviving an off airport landing if I had to make one.

Your chance of staying right side up in an "A" model is zero or very close to zero. Your chance of surviving a nose over, appears to also be zero or next to zero.

I'm still deciding 9/9A--trying really hard to decide because I need to order my fuse. kit within the next month--but take issue with the above generalization.

I have searched the NTSB databases extensively on this question. I have found that, indeed, nosewheels are more likely to nose over (at least proportionately they seem more likely to do so). However, there is nothing to indicate in the NTSB reports that fatalities or serious injuries are happening in significant and disproportionate numbers in these cases. Moreover, on what basis would one determine whether one's chance of staying upright in an -A model is "zero or close to zero"? I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. If people are not flipping, and not publicly declaring an emergency, there's not necessarily any reason to report this to the NTSB or make it into the accident database. The statement could be true, but I'd be interested where there is statistically valid numbers to back it up. I stand willing to be corrected, but these are my observations.

One thing to factor in for 9/9a builders, because of the significantly lower landing speed, it seems reasonably that the likelihood of flipping a nosewheel -9 would be significantly less as well. Just food for thought.

I agree both nosewheel and tailwheel have their value. Nonetheless, given lower insurance rates for nosewheels (pilot experience equal), I highly doubt flying a nosewheel RV is less "safe". Insurance actuaries know what they are doing and price their policies accordingly.

No hostilities intended, just adding my .02 because I'm very much in need of making this decision soon and so I've thought about it a great deal.

Best to everyone else making this decision. For others who've already decided, I'm happy with the choices they made if it makes them happy.

Steve

[Jconard]

"I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. "

Why are you sure of that?

I believe the chance is zero or near zero based on the three fatalities in the last 2 years, and because none of the nose gear guys around here will fly to grass strips.

Just as there are positives to having the CG in front of the mains, when you screw up a landing and the plane will self correct in the longitudinal axis, it also means that weight easily transfers to the front wheel. As the weight transfers, the plane gets closer to nosing over, until it finally does.

With the head clearance, roll structure, and seat belts of an RV, you do not want to be on your head.

When it comes to landing off field, or on somewhat rough fields, there is a reason for the overwhelming use of conventional gear aircraft in bush operations

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Jconard

"I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. "

Why are you sure of that?

I believe the chance is zero or near zero based on the three fatalities in the last 2 years, and because none of the nose gear guys around here will fly to grass strips.

Just as there are positives to having the CG in front of the mains, when you screw up a landing and the plane will self correct in the longitudinal axis, it also means that weight easily transfers to the front wheel. As the weight transfers, the plane gets closer to nosing over, until it finally does.

With the head clearance, roll structure, and seat belts of an RV, you do not want to be on your head.

When it comes to landing off field, or on somewhat rough fields, there is a reason for the overwhelming use of conventional gear aircraft in bush operations

"Nose wheel" guy's/gal's certainly DO use grass strips for RV's........................ a lot!

You'll see "few" RV's with missing wheel pants and tundra tires....................... for "bush" operations.

Bush flying, isn't the normal RV mission period. I'd prefer an Aviat Huskey for that, which is on my wish list for a second aircraft.

L.Adamson RV6A (paint)

[rv9aviator]

I decided on a 9-A mostly for resale value. I think the plane will sell quicker being a nose wheel. I knew I was going to build a 9 of some variation but insurance rates also helped me make up my mind. I'm hoping there will be a bigger market for a 9A than a tail dragger when it comes time to sell. I am already thinking about being a repeat offender. The tail dragger sure looks nicer to me on the ground though.
Jim Wright 90919 wings.

[Highflight]

Originally Posted by Jconard

"I'm sure there are many off-field, emergency landings that never make it into the accident database. "

Why are you sure of that?

Just as there are positives to having the CG in front of the mains, when you screw up a landing and the plane will self correct in the longitudinal axis, it also means that weight easily transfers to the front wheel. As the weight transfers, the plane gets closer to nosing over, until it finally does.

Just for sake of argument (and of course, argument is what this whole thread is about ), I'm pretty sure that it is very possible that some number of emergency landings have not made it into the accident database because the NTSB isn't under any mandate to investigate aircraft that involve only Experimental aircraft.

As far as off-field landings and nosing over, I really don't think either configuration has an advantage (note that I'm referring to unintended off-field landings, not simply landing on grass runways).
For example, you might imagine that an 'A model landing in a freshly plowed soft field, or a very rough rocky field, might catch on soft dirt or hard rock and put it over the nose. However, tailwheel aircraft would easily experience the same problem when it's main wheels dig in hard in the dirt, or hit some rocks. There's even less up front to keep a tailwheel aircraft from going over in those same circumstances.

I've seen LOT's of 'A models at grass strip fly-in's so I think the argument changes if you're talking about regular runways (hard or soft) and nasty off-field emergency landings.

Ok, someone else's turn.

[hngrflyr]

Does anyone really think this discusion has changed or will change anyone's mind? Well, it may change a few that require someone elses opinion for every decision made.
My RV-6 feeds my emotional concept of what a good airplane is. That ain't gonna change, pard. It does require me to do a good job, but a hairy chested tail dragger it isn't. If you're looking in that class of airplanes, try a Cessna 195, Beech 18 or a T-6. They are all just airplanes and mere mortals do fly them without accidents.
Just a side note, No insurance company's opinion has ever decided a single buying decision in my life, and after nearly 50 years of flying, that's not about to change.

Bob S

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by Highflight

... I'm pretty sure that it is very possible that some number of emergency landings have not made it into the accident database because the NTSB isn't under any mandate to investigate aircraft that involve only Experimental aircraft.

That's a big understatement! Do off-field landings that don't involve damage to property or injury even need to be reported? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Hypothetical: If I'm flying along in my BurgerCatcher 100 and the engine craps out over a nice flat Texas road, I'm putting her down, and calling Sam with his tool box and flat bed tow truck to come git me. I doubt it would even occur to me to call some feds.

[Ola]

Originally Posted by hngrflyr

Does anyone really think this discusion has changed or will change anyone's mind? Well, it may change a few that require someone elses opinion for every decision made.

For a newbie like me it is very interesting to read actually. For instance an experienced pilot will post a detailed description in favour of configuration X that will convince me configuration Y is what I should go for, simply because many posters are very good at describing their situation->solution decisions.

Of course it might end up a bit childish with posters more interested in justifying their own decision, but from experience elsewhere on other topics, this forum has very good debate standards. And I am sure it helps many along to a proper train of thought towards any decision, be it primer, avionics, config or the dreaded "RayBan or AO" riddle.

Sidenote, perhaps of interest to some, I recently joined EAA Norway and one of the board members told me there was little insurance difference between tail/nose configs over here. Perhaps because there isn't room for more digits in the rate box as it is?

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Originally Posted by rv9aviator

I decided on a 9-A mostly for resale value. I think the plane will sell quicker being a nose wheel. I knew I was going to build a 9 of some variation but insurance rates also helped me make up my mind. I'm hoping there will be a bigger market for a 9A than a tail dragger when it comes time to sell. I am already thinking about being a repeat offender. The tail dragger sure looks nicer to me on the ground though.
Jim Wright 90919 wings.

Although I have no intention of selling right away either, Jim, I've thought of this issue too, because I might be a repeat offender, at least of something (probably a "bush" plane like the GlaStar or something). Definitely, I would suspect that the market for a 9 would be smaller than for a 9A. At the same time, there are so many fewer 9's being built, proportionately (compared to the 7/7a, 6/6a), that the demand need not be that great to sell a -9 quickly. In fact, as the flying qualities of the 9/9A become more and more apparent (as more are completed), those who might otherwise buy 7 (with a tailwheel) but don't do aerobatics might want a 9 with a tailwheel. Obviously, this is all speculation. It just makes it that much harder for me to make my decision.

Time to go work more on mine, and get myself closer to having to make this decision once and for all!