Why is it assumed the poster wants an A model because he can't fly a TD? Some of us just like the look and vision while on the ground better, insurance rates, and it has nothing to do with skill level as a pilot.
.
Rocky I have a buddy here in NE (non RV) who is all about how well erected the conventional gear airplane looks on the ground. Tells me how beneficial it is on unfriendly surfaces but he landed on none. It's usually after a couple beers and goes on for years. When I tell him let's compete let's go to a strip of your choice and see who lands shorter. He says he couldn't afford the risk
Mel with your signature ... I'll start off and say you are right, but.....The "A" model will land shorter because you can achieve a higher AOA on flare.
How much shorter my friend? I can see the geometry and understand the aerodynamics, but landing short takes a lot more than gear configuration. You also still have to take off. For soft field operations which usually goes with SHORT, the Tail-Dragger is better in my opinion, even if the Trike can land a few feet shorter.... Take off for all models of RV's is longer than landing, so this is not a real advantage.
I am not arguing I am making a valid point. I think your reply is just to argue since you seem to agree with me. Also you are making straw-man arguments about things I did not say or imply.This sounds like a post made just for the sake of arguing a point?
I don't disagree that with any airplane, if the takeoff is longer than the landing then it could be argued that short landing is of no value, but that is wrong. It takes much more skill of the pilot to plant the wheels on a specific spot on a runway, at a very specific speed, than it does to execute as short of a takeoff run from a specific spot. So being able to land shorter than taking off can be of value.
Regarding the comment Mel made, the physics is pretty basic.... an airplane will fly at its slowest possible speed when flown near its critical angle of attack. Slowest speed equates to shortest take-off or landing.
A tail dragger RV-6 can not attain any where near critical angle of attack when the gear is in contact with the ground. An RV-6A can get much closer to doing so.
Note that this should not be construed to mean that just any pilot will be able to make an RV-6A take off or land shorter than any other pilot in an RV-6.
It requires a lot of practice to fly an RV out at the edge of the performance envelope, but the difference in performance potential is real.
Yep we agree. The claim to fame of a Trike is easier landing (more forgiving from ground loops) not shorter landings. That is all I am saying. However the new Trike Carbon Cub they are doing market studies with, having bush pilots fly, apparently does land and takeoff in shorter distances. On T/O it can rotate to higher angle of attack, and on landing it can slam brakes on with out tipping on nose.... No argument just expressing my opinion, RV-A models short field abilities are not practically speaking, not better than the TG to any significant degree. Have a nice day."It takes much more skill of the pilot to plant the wheels on a specific spot on a runway, at a very specific speed"
Taildraggers are harder to land than tri gear aircraft. They are a challenge. I however enjoy the challenge and get a great deal of satisfaction out of a perfect wheel landing or a great 3 pointer. That’s why I went with the TD.
From a pure operational perspective there is no question the trigear is better but then I would lose the satisfaction. I enjoy it and will keep striving for that perfect wheel landing. It probably will forever elude me but it sure is fun trying!
George
Taildraggers are harder to land than tri gear aircraft. They are a challenge. I however enjoy the challenge and get a great deal of satisfaction out of a perfect wheel landing or a great 3 pointer. That?s why I went with the TD.
From a pure operational perspective there is no question the trigear is better
Would it be difficult to convert a RV6 to a 6A? The fuselage is under construction with the front legs and tail-wheel attached. Nothing has been done on the empennage and no engine is attached.
If this is possible, what would be the cost of parts for such a change?
All that said. I love the taildraggers. I think they look extra cool. There is some swagger to your story when you operate one. I would enjoy the extra challenge of operating one. If someday I ever lose my compulsion to do the most fiscally responsible thing associated with everything I do. Maybe I'll treat myself to a beautiful taildragger.