AndyRV7

AndyRV7

Well Known Member
I've been trying to decide what to do with this landing gear choice (either in an RV, or even in a certified plane I might like to buy soon).

I guess I am not far from the norm, so I have a trememdous inclination to bail to the less challenging tricycle set-up. But I also would like to fly to grass strips and I am under the impression that a tail wheel is better for that (although I have no facts to support this).

I am a little worried that maybe there is a reason that planes evolved into tricycle set-ups, and if I am mistaken about an RV's ability to land safely and consistently at a grass field, then maybe I am wasting my time even considering the tail-wheel version of a plane.

So can anyone help me understand the issue a little better? Maybe fill in some of the facts so I can make my own educated decision? I realize that the gear choice in an RV may be a heated topic and I don't really want to start a debate, but I figured if I could understand why planes evolved the way they did a little better, maybe I could make a better choice. I imagine the greater numbers of paved runways around the world probably had somethign to do with it. But maybe there is more to it??

For what it's worth, I think any plane I end up owning would see mostly paved landings, but the appeal of being able to fly into a grass, mountain strip from time to time is a big part of the appeal to me. I absolutely want to do some adventure/wilderness sight seeing trips, not just laps around the field, or trips to Atlantic City or Block Island (although those will be fun too).

Thanks for the help! Andy
 
Hi Andy,

My advice would be to choose the configuration you want without worrying about the skill set needed for use. In my case, I had zero tailwheel time when I built my RV. My first tailwheel hour was the first hour in Alex's transition training RV-6.

I never found it to be that big of a deal. They are both fine to use and only require minor technique adjustments.

Best,
Doug
 
Doug has some good advice.

Build the plane you want and then learn to fly it. Getting the Tail Wheel endorsement is just like learning to land all over again. In about 10 hours you will be fine, in 20 you will wonder what the big deal was.

FWIW, RV's are one of the easiest TW airplanes I have ever flown.
 
You are interested in RV's undoubtedly because they are a sporty craft, well, think of the TW versions as even a bit more sporting. I second Bill's comment, RV's are fairly docile taildraggers.

It's really just a matter of personal preference.
 
Well, you guys are certainly taking some of the fear out of it!!

I am looking forward to wrapping up my PPL and then going to get some tail training (for the fun of it) over at Andover Aeroflex. I can either aplly that to an RV at some point, or just have fun logging the hours in a Cub (and picking up the extra skill!).
 
ground control

I'm still debating this myself and researched it on this site as well as looked at the NTSB accident reports. I think this will ultimately be a personal choice and needs accessment. Their is some concern with the nosewheel being a bit light and has collapsed on some hard landings and soft strips due to it's digging in. Alternatively, the tailwheel will be susceptible to ground loops, particularly when there are windy conditions. I plan on flying over 150 hours per year and once i figure it out I don't think I'll be intimidated by the ground control, so I'm leaning towards a tailwheel. That said, go-no go decisions will include the wind conditions at the airports. Block Island can be treacherous with cross-winds and have seen a few pilots come in white faced after a landing there. It's a great trip though.


Tailwheels evolved into tricycle geared planes to make it a bit easier to control the aircraft on the ground. I believe the center of gravity is behind the mains on the tailwheel, requiring more attention on the ground. The reason many RVers may not have as many problems is that the average pilot flies less than 40 hours per year, but I would bet the RVers fly more and have more experience. The biggest complaint with the tri-gears is the front gear seems to be a bit light and has been known to collapse. If you're flying into Katama, no problem. Flying into the paved airport near Killington, VT you taxi on grass and it's a bit bumpy. Basin Harbor, VT needs to be checked before you go, but another great destination, park next to the restaurant and the grass strip is right next to the restaurant. Bring clubs and enjoy a round there.
 
Another opinion

I don't have anything against TD per se, but I believe that one of the reasons most new airplanes are tricicle gear has to do with the fact that TD are susceptible to ground loops because the CG is aft of the the main wheels. Don't ask me how I know! Another thing is that the effect of a crosswind on a TD, as it tends to weather vane into the wind.
Again, I'm not trying to put down the TD or scare you, but you asked why airplanes evolved into tricycles. Also, insurance premiums will be higher for TD that tricycles. How much? I don't really know, and that might not even be a concern to you.

I guess the best advise would be for you to bum a ride in both types and decide then. Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
fmarino1976 said:
Also, insurance premiums will be higher for TD that tricycles. How much? I don't really know, and that might not even be a concern to you.
Click to expand...
This seems to be urban legend. An -7A builder and myself were just comparing quotes and the only difference we can see is he placed his hull value at $10K higher than I did. We both had around 350 hours TT when the quotes were issued with me having over 100 hours TW but none in RV's and he has about 100 hours in RV-7A's. So that should be a wash.

Of course, your total time and TT to TW time ratio might impact your quote.

Just remember, when talking to other builders, myself included, they will tell you what airplane they want you to build. Build the plane you want and learn to fly it. (I can't tell you how many people tried to talk me out of building a TW -9, including some Van's employees.)
 
For what it's worth...

You've already heard about the CG being behind, instead of in front of, the mains. The best example that seems to make sense to people I've heard is to think of pushing a grocery cart forwards and it acts like a tricycle gear aircraft. Think of pushing it backwards and it acts like a TW aircraft. Try it sometime, if you haven't. You'll notice that pushing it backwards, if you get it a little cockeyed the back end will want to swing out (i.e. groundloop).

Apart from (and really, because of) the physics, the reason that planes evolved towards nosewheels is because they are easier to fly, all other things equal. Some will tell you TW's are not harder, just different. It's a nice sentiment, but I disagree. That is not to say that it is "hard" to learn how to fly a tail dragger, but it is a little harder than a nosewheel because you have to be more precise in your handling when landing, taking off and taxiing... just like you have to be a little more precise if you want to push your grocery cart backwards. Funny thing though... if you pushed that grocery cart backwards for a few hours, I bet it would become natural and you wouldn't really think about it too much. ;)

I bought a couple books and read the voluminous posts about how one is better than the other in certain circumstances and how both are succeptable to certain types of mishandling accidents. In the end, I chose TW (despite having zero hours in them at the time) because this is an adventure for me. If I wanted utility, I'd be building a 10, or taking up woodworking as a hobby instead. This is supposed to be challenging and fun (at least, that's how I look at it), and TW fit that bill better for me after doing my research.

I now have about 25 hrs. in a Supercub and LOVE it!
 
This is all good info. Thanks!

I guess I am just at the point where I know a TD is going to be more challenging. That alone is not a problem to me. But if that is something that will end up having a real negative impact on my ability to use the plane (wind conditions too trecherous), and that fact isn't offset by the fact that I can now land in places a trike cannot, then I feel like I might be wasting the effort.

I must say though that the look of the TD has really grown on me. But this is still going to be a tough decision. I think that I should have plenty of time to finish my PPL and then take at least a few TD lessons before I need to make an RV decision. Maybe that will help too. And I think someone said that I should try to bum a ride in both. That seems like very good advice!!
 
20 knot direct crosswind and ice with TD

AndyRV7 said:
...But if that is something that will end up having a real negative impact on my ability to use the plane (wind conditions too trecherous), and that fact isn't offset by the fact that I can now land in places a trike cannot, then I feel like I might be wasting the effort....
Click to expand...
http://www.vansairforce.net/rv_travel/AngelFire2005/AngelFire.htm

I've never thought my choice of a TD RV has limited me in any way compared to a tri-gear. The reverse would not be true. I don't know if there is any difference at all in the cross-wind the two different types can handle.

Some have made the point that there has been a tendency toward tri-gear airplanes over the years. That is true in general, but not so much in areas where high-performance is important, with the exception of modern jet fighters (for various reasons). Think spray planes and unlimited aerobatics for two. Glider tow-planes for another.
 
I guess I am just at the point where I know a TD is going to be more challenging.
Click to expand...

This "challenging" bit is way overblown. Please recall that fifty years ago, all new pilots were trained in tailwheel aircraft. If those guys/gals five decades ago could figure out how to fly with the little wheel in back, why can't new pilots today learn as well??

Learning good airmanship (and groundmanship?) is imperative regardless of where the wheels are located.
 
Last edited:
A RV-4 friend and I were talking about TW or Trigear choice. He said if you can't land a Taildragger RV safely, you probably shouldn't be landing a Nosewheel one either.



disclaimer: 220hrs TT, mostly C-172. but have 34hrs TW mostly Citabria. I picked TW, just cuz'. I also have made some choices others dispute, like no pax-side brakes, pax stick will be removed most of the time and Minimum rattlecan primer....yikes
 
hydroguy2 said:
A RV-4 friend and I were talking about TW or Trigear choice. He said if you can't land a Taildragger RV safely, you probably shouldn't be landing a Nosewheel one either.



disclaimer: 220hrs TT, mostly C-172. but have 34hrs TW mostly Citabria. I picked TW, just cuz'. I also have made some choices others dispute, like no pax-side brakes, pax stick will be removed most of the time and Minimum rattlecan primer....yikes
Click to expand...

I'm glad so many people seem to think the challenge is not such a big deal. In my heart I think I want to TD.

How do you like the Citabria? I half considered one of them too just because of it's ruggedness.
 
AndyRV7 said:
I'm glad so many people seem to think the challenge is not such a big deal. In my heart I think I want to TD.
How do you like the Citabria? I half considered one of them too just because of it's ruggedness.
Click to expand...

You can't go wrong either way, Andy. Good luck on your decision and if you're ever in the Dallas area look me up. We'll take my TD out for a drive so you can at least have that data point.

b,
d
 
AndyRV7 said:
I'm glad so many people seem to think the challenge is not such a big deal. In my heart I think I want to TD.

How do you like the Citabria? I half considered one of them too just because of it's ruggedness.
Click to expand...

Citabria's are great! I did the lions share of my training and check ride in one.

Besides the challenge, the bragging rights, the ability to use rougher strips and their obvious better looks :p, possessing the skill to fly a TD makes available a whole new world of interesting and antique aircraft!
 
Ambidextrous

Just get two sets of plug-n-play main gear and go for whatever you feel like that day.:D

quadgear.jpg
[/quote]
 
AndyRV7 said:
I'm glad so many people seem to think the challenge is not such a big deal. In my heart I think I want to TD.

How do you like the Citabria? I half considered one of them too just because of it's ruggedness.
Click to expand...

I really like the Citabria. It is great for low and slow, picture taking, aniaml spotting, etc. Ruggedness, yep, proved several times...let's just say I should have been a Naval aviator instead of submariner. I will say getting my TW endorsement took a bit of effort, because of all my Cessna time made me lazy. the Citabria, while docile, keeps me paying attention all the way to parking. Plus in our club only 10 or so pilots fly the Citabria, so it's available a lot.
I would have ordered a -8, except the wife doesn't want to look at the back of my head.
 
hydroguy2 said:
I would have ordered a -8, except the wife doesn't want to look at the back of my head.
Click to expand...
That is the only thing that has been clear to me since day-1! I knew from the start I wanted my GF to sit next to me (if I ever get the confidence to bring her in the plane that is!!:eek:). Everything in time I guess!
 
My final decision was based solely on looks. I think the "3" & "4" look great as taildraggers, the "8" looks so-so, but better than a nose wheel version. I personally believe the 6's & 7's as definitely having a look of more substance as tri-gears, while on the ground. :D The taildraggers gain the edge, while airborne.

Van's short aspect ratio wings are NOT the sportiest looking things when viewed from below or above. The "squatting" position of the 6 & 7 taildraggers just seems to show more of the most unappealing item regarding Van's aircraft. :eek:

The "8" model wasn't available when I started mine. But being a P-51 Mustang fan, I'd have gave it very serious thought. I still think the Harmon Rockets & F1s have a meaner & sinister look. The look I like!

But back to the mission. The decision was for side by side, as I don't believe that all those years riding tandem on a motorcycle, were the best, company wise, for long cross countrys.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
Last edited:
I have 70hrs TT on Tdraggers. I am getting used to it ,but to be fair it is more challenging. It has definitelly made me a more attentive pilot.
I would do the TD again . Without a doubt.
 
TD's 50 Years Ago

Remember, that in the days of nothing but TD's most of the surfaces were grass which is more forgiving than pavement in the case of a touchdown with either slight misalignment, drift or both. Crosswinds? Well many landing fields back then were just that, fields. Landings could always be made into the wind if the "field" was square.
 
Aging airport infrastructure is making it "harder" on tailwheel pilots and aircraft because many communities with WWII era 3 runway airports are closing one or two of the runways to reduce cost.

What this means is that (for instance) if you flew into Rome, GA about 5 years ago, you had 3 runways (total of 6 headings) to choose from. At worst, you didn't ever have to accept more than a 30 degree crosswind. With the recent closure of one of the runways, there are days when your best runway option has a 60 degree crosswind.

We travel back and forth from Atlanta to various parts of Texas frequently. There are multiple fields along our route with abandoned runways, which I see as a shame. One of our favorite stops, Greenwood, MS recently closed its E/W runway. The two remaining N/S runways are nice, but when the wind is 15 knots plus gusts out of the West, that E/W runway would certainly come in handy.

Don't let anyone fool you. On a gusty day, it matters. A nosewheel airplane will be easier to land than its near-identical tailwheel twin, and crosswinds or gusty crosswinds increase the challenge significantly.

Me? I built the tailwheel because that's what I wanted (and still want). But there have been and will continue to be days where I alter my flying plans because of winds. My personal limits would be somewhat higher if the airplane had a nosewheel. And I think that deep inside, this is true for most of us with tailwheel airplanes.
 
grahambo said:
Remember, that in the days of nothing but TD's most of the surfaces were grass which is more forgiving than pavement in the case of a touchdown with either slight misalignment, drift or both. Crosswinds? Well many landing fields back then were just that, fields. Landings could always be made into the wind if the "field" was square.
Click to expand...

Nawwww.....I just can't buy the idea that student pilots 50 years ago weren't taught how to make crosswind landings in a taildragger.....and there were lots of hard-surfaced runways fifty years ago.

We're talking about basic airmanship here, proper use of airspeed and rudder. What is so challenging or demanding about that??? Have we gotten to the point that today's pilots have decided that possessing the skill to keep a plane tracking straight in a crosswind is beyond their learning capabilities???????
 
TW or NG

Regardless of the "airmanship" claim. Look at accident stats on both types. Much higher rate of take off and landing incident in TW airplanes. This in turn drives insurance rates higher for TW airplanes.

FWIW -

I have more than 1000 hours in TW airplanes ranging from Cubs to Maules, C185's and a couple hundred hours in Beavers (which was, btw, the most docile of them all).

NO question that gusty crosswinds creates a more challenging environment for TW airplanes than their nose gear equivalents.

I built a -9A. :cool:
 
ksouthar said:
Regardless of the "airmanship" claim. Look at accident stats on both types. Much higher rate of take off and landing incident in TW airplanes. This in turn drives insurance rates higher for TW airplanes.

FWIW -

I have more than 1000 hours in TW airplanes ranging from Cubs to Maules, C185's and a couple hundred hours in Beavers (which was, btw, the most docile of them all).

NO question that gusty crosswinds creates a more challenging environment for TW airplanes than their nose gear equivalents.

I built a -9A. :cool:
Click to expand...

Not to mention seeing over the nose while taxiing and sometimes landings; which is impossible with some tailwheel airplanes. Anyway you look at it, the nose dragger has the advantage in this regard. RV wise, it usually isn't a problem, though.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
NO question that gusty crosswinds creates a more challenging environment for TW airplanes than their nose gear equivalents.
Click to expand...

That misses the point of my post. There is no argument that landing a tailwheel aircraft in a cross wind (or an absence of wind for that matter) requires more skill than plopping down a nose wheel plane.

But is the degree of skill required for a tailwheel aircraft so demanding that modern pilots should just throw up their hands and say "I can't/shouldn't do that!"? At the risk of undermining the mistique of tailwheel pilots having far more skills along with the gravely voice of ye ol' DC-3 airline pilot,;) I contend that the safe operation of a tailwheel aircraft is very much within the reach of the average student pilot who has a desire to slightly expand the scope of their flying experience.

Propagating the promise of ground loops and props dug into the ground if a pilot dares to learn how to fly a conventional geared plane only serves to further narrow our little aviation world if folks are scared away from adding tailwheel skills to their logbook.

I have a good friend who recently made his first student solo flight in a C172. I have strongly urged him to take advantage of the rental Champ at his field by getting a tailwheel endorsement. He has decided to do so and not only will he be a better pilot because of it but will have the option of flying some neat aircraft.
 
Tail wheel vs. Nose whee made simple.

Let my simplify this decision for you If you build a nose wheel you won't be able to grow hair on your chest. This has been explained in most meaningful terms to me my neighbors who want me to change the 7A I am building to a tail wheel. When I started I just did not know these facts. My wife is ok with the now wheel version as she is considering taking up the left seat. The hair on the chest part did not go over so well with her. It has also been pointed out that they fixed that tail wheel problem years ago. Oh... and so that you know... I have a Citabria because the 7A plane is taking way more than the year I predicted to build. Shall we go into slider canopy or Subaru power at this time <grin> :eek:

So now that you have more facts that should simplify the decision for you. :p

I would build the tail wheel next time. #1 Looks cool. I know all the other stuff. It does not matter. Tail wheels are just fine easy enough to land. Right now I am not happy with the nose wheel gear and the number of folded ones I have heard of. Go tail wheel.
 
Andy,
Don't let the TD scare you. If I can learn to fly them, anyone can. I bought my first TD as a 400+ hour trike pilot. Sure, it took a little practice but now I've got about an equal amount trike vs. TD time.

As far as the RV's go, I currently fly an RV-4 and previously owned an
RV-6A. The trikes are nice airplanes for sure, but personally I'll never own another. The TD is just so much more fun and better looking in my personal opinion. I feel a lot more comfortable taking the 4 into rough strips than I did the 6A, and feel just as confident in a strong crosswind with the taildragger as I did the trike.

Try both and see which YOU prefer, but don't let anyone scare you about the RV taildraggers. They are pussycats.
 
Voice as well..

TOAD said:
Let my simplify this decision for you If you build a nose wheel you won't be able to grow hair on your chest. ........
Click to expand...

.........and your voice will become several octaves higher on the first flight:D

Sheesh,
 
CraigH@KRPH said:
Andy,
Don't let the TD scare you. If I can learn to fly them, anyone can. I bought my first TD as a 400+ hour trike pilot. Sure, it took a little practice but now I've got about an equal amount trike vs. TD time.

As far as the RV's go, I currently fly an RV-4 and previously owned an
RV-6A. The trikes are nice airplanes for sure, but personally I'll never own another. The TD is just so much more fun and better looking in my personal opinion. I feel a lot more comfortable taking the 4 into rough strips than I did the 6A, and feel just as confident in a strong crosswind with the taildragger as I did the trike.

Try both and see which YOU prefer, but don't let anyone scare you about the RV taildraggers. They are pussycats.
Click to expand...

Thanks Craig. And everyone. I think the TD is what I want, and there seems to be enough support for them. I guess a few hours in that Cub I mentioned should help ease my concerns. I still have a ton of other issues to work out. Like build space. It's funny, 3 months ago I swore I would never build an RV unless I could quit my job (which I can't). Then I swore I would never build a slow build. Now I think I am going to build the plane while working fulltime, AND I am going to build it as a slow build. Crazy what a sickness it is.

Incidentally, I have a fair amount of hair on my chest, so maybe thee TD might make things worse!!:)
 
It is interesting that most of the vocal flyers on this board prefer nostalgia (tail wheels) to science, but the vast majority of RVs are ordered with the front wheel.

The reason most planes are built with tri gear these days is because they are more stable on the ground, therefore safer and cheaper to insure. The only reason Id pick a tailwheel over trigear arrangement would be to 1) land on an aircraft carrier with a tailhook or 2) possibly if I planned to land on a rough strip most of the time.

Unless I missed something, both styles should be landed on the main gear and remain there as long as possible.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.