gmcjetpilot said:The Tri-gear is boring to me
B-36!! Are you talking about a 1949 old, Convair B-36, Strategic Air command (movie Ref. 1955 Jimmy Stewart movie ), B-36, with 6 radial pushers and 4 jet engines? That is a stretch. What does that have to do with a little single engine prop plane? The B-36 Bomber analogy as a TG is weak, why not say SR71. Now that would be a funny looking TG'er. The B-36 is an old ugly nose dragger, so it is a good example of another homely nose gear plane. The P-51 is what a single engine prop plane should look like.L.Adamson said:I love TD's as much as anyone. But.................. the side by side TD's just looked fat, bloated, stubby, or something that I can't put my finger on.
Therefore, my decision was based on it's mission (cross-country) and looks on the ground, and the fact that my long time Air Force uncle suggested the nose wheel as being more practical. A B-36 would have looked awfully weird with a tail wheel, wouldn't it...L.Adamson --- RV6A
gmcjetpilot said:Look it is OK to admit you have tailwheel envy. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem.
As far as a Tricycle geared RV being "more practical" and better for "cross country mission(s)", I am not sure how a going slower and worrying about landing on soft grass strips fits in to that, ... <snip>
No offense but nose draggers are boring to look at, taxi, takeoff and land.
gmcjetpilot said:B-36!! Are you talking about a 1949 old, Convair B-36, Strategic Air command (movie Ref. 1955 Jimmy Stewart movie ), B-36, with 6 radial pushers and 4 jet engines?
Ha Ha Ha Ha, Good on you, buddy, I would have loved to hear all those engines (168 cylinders and 4 jet engines) at one time L.L.Adamson said:6A's still look better than the pudgy 6 on the ground, and retracts still look better all around! L.Adamson
gmcjetpilot said:... has no gear fitting intrusion into cockpit area...
Martorious said:Except the 8, those gear towers on the 8 are quite intrusive. Also I've heard that the A models may have a slight advantage over the TG on stol because the AOA when the tail is on the ground is less than the optimum AOA for TO, while the A's can rotate into a slightly more agressive AOA. My reasoning for the 8A anyway.
N941WR said:Van's tried to talk me out of building my -9 because they said the -9A was a better short/rough field aircraft. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
As for rotating and a tricycle gear to a slightly aggressive AOA, I'm not so sure why that would be. If you over rotated a tri-gear the tail will hitcausing damage. Not so with a TW where the TW will hit the ground. Truth is, I've never hit the tail on rotation after lifting the TW. It might be possible but I've never done it.
Typical take off procedure for a TW aircraft is to lift the tail early in the roll, leave it slightly tail low then rotate, just like in a tri-gear. Some TW aircraft might call for a three point takeoff for short / rough fields but I don't know of any.
Maybe the high AOA during the initial takeoff roll is what lengthens the distance, I don't really know.
"...TD simply ...assumes a flying attitude sooner." Prove it. That is a stretch of your imagination. Have you actually seen a RV?David-aviator said:Van's may know more about their airplanes than most of us.
The trike WILL get off the ground sooner than the TD simply because airplane assumes a flying attitude sooner. [snip] TD energy is lost getting up to speed to lift the tail. dd RV-7A
I flew a simulated combat mission today seeking terrorist sky spies.
Just to help corroborate your assertion, I also read in one of the RVators news letters that Van thought the Trikes might do short field take offs slightly better than the tail draggers due to the fact you can get a steeper angle of attack earlier.David-aviator said:Van's may know more about their airplanes than most of us.
The trike WILL get off the ground sooner than the TD simply because airplane assumes a flying attitude sooner. I've done a full aft stick take off sooner than expected while trying to adjust a CS prop off of wet soft grass. TD energy is lost getting up to speed to lift the tail. A Super Cub can lift the tail before starting the roll, but not so in an RV.
Tail draggers look cool but they do not out perform the trike except maybe for a knot or 2 in cruise.
dd
RV-7A
Subby H6 MT Prop
I flew a simulated combat mission today seeking terrorist sky spies. None found but I will keep looking.
mlw450802 said:Just to help corroborate your assertion, I also read in one of the RVators news letters that Van thought the Trikes might do short field take offs slightly better than the tail draggers due to the fact you can get a steeper angle of attack earlier.
The max angle is pretty well fixed on the tail dragger until the mains are off.
The performance of either is undoubtedly impressive for most of us.
-Mike
gmcjetpilot said:
Also, not to pick on you dd, your Subaru H6 RV will have an empty weight about 100lbs more, most over the nose wheel, than a similarly powered RV with a Lycoming. Your T/O and Landing runs will be longer. Also with a $10,000 MT prop spinning next to the rocks with bonded on erosion guards, if damaged, would need an expensive trip to Germany to get fixed. If I where you I would stay off the short rough stuff, BUT when you get-er done , let me know. We have a fly off/ landing contest off a soft field against my RV-7/O-360A1A/Hartzell. The Hartzell BTW can take rock dings and be fixed on the plane with file.
G
I am jealous . I think I am going to put a personal ad in, "Looking for good woman who loves planes, lives at a fly-in airpark, hanger a plus, send picture of air-strip and hanger." GDavid-aviator said:George, I'm married to my wife and a grass runway at an airpark. dd
Apparently, in an exceptionally clever business decision, they waited until airplanes were developed...gmcjetpilot said:... Hartzell on the other hand goes back to 1875 and started making props, in 1914, for WW I planes. ...
gmcjetpilot said:I am jealous . I think I am going to put a personal ad in, "Looking for good woman who loves planes, lives at a fly-in airpark, hanger a plus, send picture of air-strip and hanger." G
Was dieses ist! Weltkrieg zwei ! MT-Propeller celebrates its (Zwanzig f?nf) 25-Years Anniversary in Jan 2005. The company was founded in 1980 by Gerd Muehlbauer. Hartzell on the other hand goes back to 1875 and started making props, in 1914, for WW I planes. Do I win. MT props and Subbie are great. I drove a Subie for 12 years, great engines. The MT is too much money, but they are very nice.
What da I win, What da I win. I am kidding about MT. Many top acro guys use the MT. The light wood/composite design is very strong and light. I do worry a little about any non-homogeneous things on a prop, like the erosion guards bonded on, but they should last a long time with out maintenance if there is no trauma (prop strike). However I think all major repairs are sent back to the factory in Deutschland? That might add to the cost of ownership. Hey it is German, it is like a Porsche, it cost more. For auto conversions that can't accept a hydraulic prop, it is the only way to go. I would not hesitate to put one on for that application. GDavid-aviator said:You do not win, George, your research on MT did not go back far enough.
First aircraft prop was???? Anyone? Any takers?mlw450802 said:Apparently, in an exceptionally clever business decision, they waited until airplanes were developed...
-Mike