What makes for a good taildragger?

[jhausch]

(This is a cross post from another board - http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo...ead.php?t=2105)

When I say "good" I guess I mean overall landing and ground handling qualities.

What design characteristics aid that goal?

-greater rudder area vs trike counterpart (any rule of thumb area ratios)
-cg location (relative to main gear to tailwheel span - is there a ratio?)
-gear type (struts, spring steel)
-gear orientation (toe, caster, camber)
-sight over the nose on the ground (or is this just cheating?)

I got my sign off in a J3 and have 50+ in a C-185.

Do folks like Van's make any special mods in the switch from an RV-X to and RV-XA?

How about those Cessna Texas Taildragger conversions. Anything beyond the gear layout modified?

From the original post, here are some replies thus far:

-wide wheelbase for the mains, not short-coupled

-Width of the landing gear with the CG located near the main gear, a bit of toe out to the mains, a long fuselage, a narrow engine w/ high seating position and a locking tail wheel.

(this triggered a Q from me: It seems the AC I flew allowed you to kick the tailwheel out of a detent to spin around. I wonder how they determine the amount of resistance for that detent?)

Thanks.

[Randy Walls]

Originally Posted by jhausch

(This is a cross post from another board - http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo...ead.php?t=2105)


(this triggered a Q from me: It seems the AC I flew allowed you to kick the tailwheel out of a detent to spin around. I wonder how they determine the amount of resistance for that detent?)

Thanks.

The tailwheels I have flown release at a fixed steering angle. This angle set so that the wheel will not castor in normal taxi or landing operations. At angles less than that the only way the wheel will castor is if something breaks.

[bsacks05]

Almost all my 200+ TW hours have been in my RV9. I think a really nice trait of the -9 is the fact that the long wing and thick airfoil allow lots of time for the pilot to think, adjust, and react in the landing flare. So maybe "low landing speed" is something you could add to the list of desireable characteristics.

[Mike S]

Hey Jim, welcome to VAF.

I flew a Stinson 108 3, for a little over 20 years, it is one of the sweetest handling tail draggers there is out there.

I had a Scott 3200 series tailwheel, which also had the breakout/castoring feature you mentioned. This is pretty standard for this class of plane, allows tight turns.

The Stinson has a very effective rudder, and an incredibly forgiving main gear.
Main gear--welded box beam unit-- pivoted up/down in its mount at the lower longereon, compression spring/strut control units under seat.

The Whitman gear Vans uses will flex any which way in a bad landing, I have seen the main gear bend/flex 2 feet or more rearward on a 6 that came in too hard. Luckily, it sprung back to normal, and the next landing was just fine.

I am firmly convinced, BTW, that this omnidirectional flexing is a major cause of the -a flipping over issue. But, that is another storyline.

[John Clark]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Hey Jim, welcome to VAF.

I flew a Stinson 108 3, for a little over 20 years, it is one of the sweetest handling tail draggers there is out there.

I had a Scott 3200 series tailwheel, which also had the breakout/castoring feature you mentioned. This is pretty standard for this class of plane, allows tight turns.

The Stinson has a very effective rudder, and an incredibly forgiving main gear.
Main gear--welded box beam unit-- pivoted up/down in its mount at the lower longereon, compression spring/strut control units under seat.

The Whitman gear Vans uses will flex any which way in a bad landing, I have seen the main gear bend/flex 2 feet or more rearward on a 6 that came in too hard. Luckily, it sprung back to normal, and the next landing was just fine.

I am firmly convinced, BTW, that this omnidirectional flexing is a major cause of the -a flipping over issue. But, that is another storyline.

Spring steel (tube or flat) gear is a bit of a compromise. But the other options are complex, heavy, and require maintenance. The simplicity and aerodynamics of the Van's gear makes it the obvious choice. The downside is that the gear, when landed hard, it will use some of the energy to put you back into the air. I used to fly a Waco YMF5 with a rather involved oleo strut main gear. When "thumped" on a landing it would absorb quite a bit and help you "save face." In the Waco you could not see forward at all while doing a 3 point landing or while rolling out from a wheel landing. It was a real pleasure to get in my "8" after wrestling that thing around.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
Flying since '04
KSBA

[jhausch]

Low landing speed - yes, that's good to add to the list.

I can see the idea of slowly releasing the stored energy of the carrier landing would be better than logging a second landing. . .

Is there a compromise between flat or round spring steel and a complex strut configuration?

I recall the cub bungee set up - perhaps a gas shock integrated into that system?

I wonder if there are strong cases selecting the continuous flat steel legs vs the separate round steel legs used by Van's

I would imagine rudder area is much more important in a TD -I just wonder how much more is the right amount? I was hoping to hear from someone involved with a Texas or Bush Conversions Taildragger conversion. I wonder if the old straight tail Cessnas do better in that conversion?

Also - I did get a comment about a good quality being a CG up closer to the mains. That makes sense - but how close?

[John Clark]

Originally Posted by jhausch

Low landing speed - yes, that's good to add to the list.

I can see the idea of slowly releasing the stored energy of the carrier landing would be better than logging a second landing. . .

Is there a compromise between flat or round spring steel and a complex strut configuration?
Weight, complexity, and drag.

I recall the cub bungee set up - perhaps a gas shock integrated into that system?
Actually rubber acts as a damper. The DeHavilland Otter had rubber "suspension" in the main gear and it worked very well.

I wonder if there are strong cases selecting the continuous flat steel legs vs the separate round steel legs used by Van's
Van's uses flat steel gear in the RV8, although not continuous. I think the difference is that it will be much less likely to deflect to the rear like the round tube version.

I would imagine rudder area is much more important in a TD -I just wonder how much more is the right amount? I was hoping to hear from someone involved with a Texas or Bush Conversions Taildragger conversion. I wonder if the old straight tail Cessnas do better in that conversion?
I have flown several Texas taildragger conversions and found that there was plenty of rudder authority with the original rudder even with a 180 HP engine. Also there is no difference between the straight and swept tail. Cessna admitted years ago it was strictly a "styling" issue.


Also - I did get a comment about a good quality being a CG up closer to the mains. That makes sense - but how close?
Be careful, very careful! The further forward the CG gets the easier directional control will be BUT it will also be easier to put it on its nose while rolling out or taxiing

John Clark MS, ATP, CFI
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

[Bill Dicus]

My absolute favorite is the Pitts S-2A. It's just plain scary when you first try to land it, but with familiarity comes comfort and a realization that the plane is not only more fun than almost anything, but that it handles an incredibly wide variety of landing challenges. It is hands down the best crosswind airplane I've ever flown; have landed it in 45 knot direct cross with gusts to 55 and it's just fine. More tricky taxiing after you're down than landing. Pattern can be flown at 150 or 85 until short final and you can still land short. Descent rates allow a ridiculously high final while still permitting a short landing. Someone indicated many hours in the Cessna 185; there's a plane that's hard to land - much tougher than the Pitts for me! If you have a chance, try to fly the Pitts (S-2B and C are similar). Bill

[John Clark]

Originally Posted by Bill Dicus

More tricky taxiing after you're down than landing. Bill

Yup! True with a lot of tailwheel airplanes (I was once told that taildraggers have tail skids. ) Many can be very interesting during taxi. When I was checking out in a DC-3, I was told "anybody can fly it, but it takes a real pilot to taxi the thing." Very true when dealing with a twelve ton tailwheel airplane that has a real affinity for facing into the wind.

I second Bill's statement about the Pitts, if you ever get a chance to fly one, go for it!

John Clark ATP, CFI
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

[Tom Navar]

Bill Dicus has it right when he says the Pitts is awesome on crosswinds. All one has to do is get over the feeling that he has a tiger by the tail for the first 50 or so hours of hair-raising experiences on landing. The most memorable taildraggers I've flown have been the DC-3 (air freight, mostly at night, mostly into Mexico), and the Pitts. Greetings, Bill.
Tom Navar
RV-8 QB (building)
Pitts S2A
Cessna 180
Douglas DC-3, "Aero Juarez, S.A. de C.V."