Clearly generated by AI
No RV builder/owner/pilot would let their exhaust stacks become so uneven (ROFL)
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Tail wheel vs Nose wheel pros and cons
- Thread starter roxiedog13
- Start date
No RV builder/owner/pilot would let their exhaust stacks become so uneven (ROFL)
These threads are always interesting and apart from the joking contain useful bits of information. I remember the same thread when I started my -7 in the early 2000's as I was trying to decide which way to go. The best advice I received was build what you want to fly and learn how to fly it. As tail wheel aircraft go the RV's are relatively easy to land with a lot of rudder authority and can handle stiff Xwinds, sticking the landing requires speed and rate of decent management as has been mentioned due to the springy gear legs but otherwise pretty docile. Build and fly what you like, in the air you will not notice any difference, on the ground well that's another story
Figs
Figs
Roadjunkie1
Well Known Member
Yeah, NOW you've done it!
Um..........then it makes me wonder why nearly all of the STOL aircraft are tail-draggers.
I'm sure there are suddenly a bunch of tail wheel pilots that would take you up on that challenge. As we say in medicine when we hear some odd statistic: "State your source."
Last edited:
That's me - I can't tell you how many attractive ladies I have surrounding me in a typical bar when I loudly announce to them that I fly a tailwheel aircraft. Like moths to a flame!I had thought the primary benefit of a tailwheel was telling everybody you flew a tailwheel
How do you know somebody's a tailwheel pilot? Don't worry, they'll tell you!
Not really a pro or con....but a thought on making your decision.
If the pros and cons were exactly equal, which would you choose? Whatever your choice is....go with that.
The privilege of owning and flying your own aircraft is far to fleeting to base a decision on what others think, resale value, or any single pro/con. Buy the airplane you want and enjoy it. We all have opinions and there's been some pretty well made points here....none of them fit all circumstances. Yes, I'm a tailwheel guy....so what?
If the pros and cons were exactly equal, which would you choose? Whatever your choice is....go with that.
The privilege of owning and flying your own aircraft is far to fleeting to base a decision on what others think, resale value, or any single pro/con. Buy the airplane you want and enjoy it. We all have opinions and there's been some pretty well made points here....none of them fit all circumstances. Yes, I'm a tailwheel guy....so what?
Put me down for a nose wheel. It is definitely a personal preference. I think they look better and are easier to operate. My hat is off to all those pilots that have the extra skills to safely operate a tail wheel aircraft. For me, being a skilled pilot is my goal. However the extra challenge of operating a tail wheel aircraft (although I am confident I could achieve with the proper training) does not fall into the "fun" column which is why I am involved in aviation.
(OP) I think you would be happy with either (NW/TW). I've never really found it that hard to operate either configuration. As a data point, when I was building my RV6 I didn't have a tailwill endorsement. I got it in the RV I built using Alex DeDominicis. If memory serves I had about two hundred hours total time.
I guess if I was trying to whittle it down to one point, I would just go find an airplane in whatever configuration you can find. You will figure out how to operate it.
Dragging the plane around by the tailwhee tow bar is pretty easy, I will say. ;^)
Amadeus
Well Known Member
How do you know somebody's a vegan? How do you know if somebody's been to the gym today? How do you know if somebody's a tailwheel pilot?
Same answer for all!
JonJay
Well Known Member
Before I was a pilot, I thought piloting an aircraft took special people with higher intelligence, brains, and guts. After I became a pilot I realized anybody can do it and pilots are a cross section of all types of people.
So, choice of where the little wheel goes is going to also cover all types of folks.
So, choice of where the little wheel goes is going to also cover all types of folks.
Roadjunkie1
Well Known Member
Mickey: You crack me UP!!!That's me - I can't tell you how many attractive ladies I have surrounding me in a typical bar when I loudly announce to them that I fly a tailwheel aircraft. Like moths to a flame!
walkman
Well Known Member
I hear this a lot. I think it is completely false, or at least misleading (unless there is something special about the -14 that I don't know about)
I'm out there flying my -8 on days when the 172s and Cherokees won't leave the house.
For fun I'm actively looking for the airport with the greatest crosswind component.
Crosswind is just not an issue for anyone that is spending the time to learn to fly their aircraft and stay current.
Don't let FUD impact your buying decision.
I'm a first time builder with ZERO tailwheel experience. As much as I admit the tailwheel looks better and I so wanted to have one, I had to be realistic in my requirements. Can't lie, insurance cost and potential resale value was also a consideration. Tricycle it is.
rocketman1988
Well Known Member
Have you considered that the odds are that those that don’t leave the house may very well be low time or student pilots?
Or, maybe it is a high time pilot that just doesn’t care to be bounced and thrown around, just for fun.
The point is, again, it is not about the plane, it is about the pilot…
A lot of the higher load carrying STOL airplanes, are tricycle gear, but the fact that the majority are tail draggers is for many other reasons other than just that it makes them land and takeoff shorter.Yeah, NOW you've done it!
Um..........then it makes me wonder why nearly all of the STOL aircraft are tail-draggers.
Since this is an RV specific venue, I didn’t think I needed to say it, but I guess I should have said “in the context of tail dragger versus tricycle gear RVs”, the tricycle gear model will win every time when comparing takeoff and landing distance.
The reason is because that distance is directly related to how slow the airplane can fly.
How slow the airplane can fly is directly related to what angle of attack it is capable of achieving just before touchdown or liftoff.
All of the tricycle gear RVs are capable of achieving a higher angle of attack when resting on the main gear, than the tail dragger version can achieve when resting on the gear in a three-point attitude.
In simple terms, you can’t rotate a tail dragger airplane to a higher angle of attack than it is at when sitting on the tail wheel.
Yeah, I know there are techniques that STOL competition pilots use to try and increase the angle of attack for takeoff, but for the most part, it is not possible with tail dragger RVs.
Case in point…
For the measured takeoff and landing distances for the RV-14A in the chart linked below, I was nearly dragging the tail tiedown ring on the runway for the takeoffs.
That produces quite a bit higher angle of attack than is possible for the tail dragger during takeoff.
This also comes into play for a minimum distance landing.
RV-14 / 14A - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes
www.vansaircraft.com
I don’t know that I would say that tricycle gear, RVs handle, crosswinds better, but I think there is no question that when the conditions are really bad, the workload on the pilot is not nearly as high.
So, depending on your definition, I guess that could mean that they handle them better.
RV8JD
Well Known Member
In addition to what Scott M. posted above about the -14/-14A, another example are CubCrafters' NXCub (nose wheel version) and their XCub (tailwheel version). Higher achievable AoA's for takeoff and landing leads to shorter takeoff and landing distances. Also, they designed the nose gear with backcountry strips in mind. CubCrafters built the NXCub with an extremely strong and robust nose gear design and mount to enable stomping on the brakes right at touchdown to achieve a very short rollout, even on rough strips (obviously, not to be done on an 'A' model RV!).Yeah, NOW you've done it!
Um..........then it makes me wonder why nearly all of the STOL aircraft are tail-draggers.
Besides, Paul Bertorelli says so!
CubCrafters NXCub: Ready Made STOL Star - Aviation Consumer
There’s a certain mystique attached to tailwheel airplanes, as in only real pilots fly airplanes with the third wheel where it’s supposed to be. No modern aircraft company has exploited this more than CubCrafters, whose refinement of the sturdy Piper Super Cub has ushered in the era of the hot...
www.aviationconsumer.com
P.S. 90% of my power time is in conventional gear airplanes (taildraggers). Not planning on a tricycle gear airplane unless old age (
) dictates it.
Last edited:
Scott Hersha
Well Known Member
I’m not arguing with a Vans engineer, but have you considered the extra weight and drag of the nose gear assembly, and the extra drag of a fully deflected set of elevators trying to achieve the steeper AOA during the takeoff roll? The only assessment that is valid is a side by side test of equally powered airplanes - the A model being a little heavier (and draggier). My takeoffs in my TW RV’s is almost always with the elevator neutral and letting the airplane lift off from the three point attitude when it’s ready to fly. My takeoff roll (RV6, O-36-A1A, fixed pitch GA prop), is always less than 500’ on pavement, even with a passenger. Maybe an equally powered A model would lift off sooner with an ace at the wheel, but the difference would be small. If you are making the A vs TW decision based on takeoff/landing distance, I would think that tiny difference shouldn’t matter.
BoydBirchler
Well Known Member
I was there to observe these accidents, I'm sure I can google a picture of any number of both nose wheel and tailwheel RV's upside down. My personal on the scene observations sample; favor the nose wheel inverting itself more often. If there were equal chances of nose wheel and tailwheels inverting themselves I should have seen more that the zero tailwheels inverted!
Not all military aircraft are tricycle. I have 2300+ hours in a military taildragger.
Dan 57
Well Known Member
This is a bit inconclusive since the -14 tested were powered by vastly different motors.
This kind of testing is difficult to perform since having 2 exact same ships, same weights, one TD and one ND, for the tests under exactly the same conditions is nearly impossible to achieve.
Also, these tests should be performed not only on hard surface runways, but also unprepared ones such as long grass, maybe even snow, which might give differing results.
Whilst there is no, or little doubt on the landing performance, there are many variations on the takeoff technique, and again, the surface used. On a TD the takeoff can be performed in a 3 point attitude, or by raising the tail prior to starting the roll. Also the application of one notch of flaps during the roll on a manual flaps equipped model will give different results.
Interestingly enough, using Van's published numbers as in my model comparison table, TDs have slightly shorter TO distance (disputed), equal or slightly longer LD distance, a higher ceiling, a better ROC, longer range, higher load capacity, and a faster top speed.
Ah yeah, almost forgot, better looks
Last edited:
roxiedog13
Member
I just happen to be retired as well, but I also live in an area prone to high gusty Crosswinds. You may depart in calm conditions, but that can change quite quickly upon return.
Another reality is that I haven’t been on wheels for nearly 2 decades , I’ve been enjoying flying float equipped aircraft 100% . I love a challenge, and the idea of a tail wheel is certainly inviting. I appreciate all the feedback, there have been some strong opinions in both camps But but kept very respectful, which I appreciate.
Seems as though there is really no significant advantage in terms of flight characteristics or weight wise. I don’t think it could be argued that tail wheel requires a little more attention, and this is the challenge most enjoy. I also think there are certain group who find the look of the tail wheel configuration more appealing, several owners have said that to me.
Anyway, I’m still trying to determine the type of aircraft, the RV 10 may be my best option, the RV 14 however, is rated for aerobatics, and that is definitely on this retirees bucket list. That said, the practicality of four seats cannot be overlooked, who knows, I may start out in the 14, end up in the 10. if I win the lottery, a tail wheel 14 would definitely be in the Barn next to the 10. In reality, it just may come down too availability and price as both have an exceptional performance envelope, really not a bad choice.
Desert Rat
Well Known Member
I didn't google that picture, I took it
Honestly, I don't see how that means much. I've also personally seen 2 Cessnas and a King Air have runway excursions and get torn up. So by that metric, I should say that you have an equal chance of crashing an RV6 and a King air 300 because thats what I've seen with my own eyeballs.
I get what your saying, and I understand that nose wheel RV's have a propensity for taking the nose gear out and flipping if they hit a gopher hole or whatever, but if there weren't proportionally more off runway adventures with the tailwheel version, then the insurance wouldn't cost more.
Last edited:
Engine size is irrelevant for landing distance performance comparisons, and the differences in takeoff distance shown in the RV-14 and 14A performance charts are significantly more than what could be attributed to the difference in horsepower.
Actual flight test data always trumps theoretical modeling.
Someone can do all the theoretical analysis they want, but the basic laws of aerodynamics are the key.
If two identically equipped RV’s, other than one being tri gear and the other a tail dragger were compared, the one that can achieve the higher angle of attack in a specific mode of flight (assuming it doesn’t exceed critical angle of attack) is the one that can fly slower.
The slower an airplane can fly, the shorter it can take off or land.
Pretty basic principal.
Agreed Scott - I recently tested two Kitfoxes against each other - one with A 915is, but huge tires, and one with the 916is, but more normal tires. The one with the big tires consistently took off and landed shorter because of the higher angle of attack In ground attitude. basic
Dan 57
Well Known Member
Yes, so basic that it is a simplistic and incomplete view on the matter. We already had this discussion here... since it is not fact but theory based, I will now leave it as is, and keep wondering how those figures published by Van's were obtained...
Dugaru
Well Known Member
Don't tell that to the Zenith crowd!then it makes me wonder why nearly all of the STOL aircraft are tail-draggers.
I prefer a nose wheel to a TW. I own one and I am building another.
My biggest reason is ease of entry and exit. In a TW, you seat yourself downhill into the seat. More like dropping in to position. To get out, you have to pull yourself up against gravity, friction and a restricted space. Even with well positioned handles, this requires strength that may be a challenge for some of your passengers. As a wiser and more experienced pilot, I speak from experience. As time passes, I have a harder time getting in and out of the TW. A buddy has an RV-7 that challenges me each time I get in and out.
Once in the aircraft, taxiing is definitely different. It requires the pilot to lean forward to get a good view. In a nose wheel, taxiing is much more comfortable and the view is great.
Nose wheel RVs had a history of ending up on their backs, especially on soft, rough surfaces. This had to do with flexion on the nose wheel strut that decelerated the aircraft and then used the energy stored in the flexed strut to finish the flip by pushing the aircraft over from the nose down, decelerated attitude. This problem has been essentially been minimized by a change in the nose wheel anatomy as well as the availability of nose wheel strut strengthener add-ons. If you will be flying a lot on rough or unimproved surfaces, I would go with a TW. As mentioned before, there is the higher possibility of a nose-strike in a TW from poor ground handling skills. A TW more so requires the pilot to pay attention to aircraft control from taxi to shut down.
Looks plays a role in each pilot. It is a matter of vanity. I agree, TW look good on the ground. Nostalgic, classical. WWII fighter stance. The nose wheel looks stable, sturdy, stately. But let's face it, we fly RVs because of the ways they fly and handle. Once in the air, looks are no longer important.
One last trait of the nose wheel that I like is the loading and unloading of baggage. I have helped a TW owner load and unload the TW and I find that it is easier in the nose wheel.
My biggest reason is ease of entry and exit. In a TW, you seat yourself downhill into the seat. More like dropping in to position. To get out, you have to pull yourself up against gravity, friction and a restricted space. Even with well positioned handles, this requires strength that may be a challenge for some of your passengers. As a wiser and more experienced pilot, I speak from experience. As time passes, I have a harder time getting in and out of the TW. A buddy has an RV-7 that challenges me each time I get in and out.
Once in the aircraft, taxiing is definitely different. It requires the pilot to lean forward to get a good view. In a nose wheel, taxiing is much more comfortable and the view is great.
Nose wheel RVs had a history of ending up on their backs, especially on soft, rough surfaces. This had to do with flexion on the nose wheel strut that decelerated the aircraft and then used the energy stored in the flexed strut to finish the flip by pushing the aircraft over from the nose down, decelerated attitude. This problem has been essentially been minimized by a change in the nose wheel anatomy as well as the availability of nose wheel strut strengthener add-ons. If you will be flying a lot on rough or unimproved surfaces, I would go with a TW. As mentioned before, there is the higher possibility of a nose-strike in a TW from poor ground handling skills. A TW more so requires the pilot to pay attention to aircraft control from taxi to shut down.
Looks plays a role in each pilot. It is a matter of vanity. I agree, TW look good on the ground. Nostalgic, classical. WWII fighter stance. The nose wheel looks stable, sturdy, stately. But let's face it, we fly RVs because of the ways they fly and handle. Once in the air, looks are no longer important.
One last trait of the nose wheel that I like is the loading and unloading of baggage. I have helped a TW owner load and unload the TW and I find that it is easier in the nose wheel.
Planecrazy232
Well Known Member
I fly a nosewheel, why? Because it was there when I bought it and I don't really care what anybody thinks. It's an RV!! Besides, the SR-71 Blackbird has a nosewheel and it doesn't make it any less cool...
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
All the emotions and egos aside, can you define the difference in performance? If you can, then you do a simple trade study and the result of that drives your decision. You do not need to elicit opinions from those of us in the peanut gallery.
That implies you think I am lying when I said it was via flight testing
With that line of thinking you should also question all of the engineering processes and static testing that was done while designing the airplanes as well.
walkman
Well Known Member
Yes I have considered that, and discounted it because the airport is DESERTED
And yes, it IS about the pilot. It is about the pilot continually practicing and increasing his/her skills be challenging themselves. And THAT is fun. If its not, you have the wrong hobby.
walkman
Well Known Member
My point is the marginal difference, one the extremely rare days when it even exists, can be easily compensated for with the skills maintenance that all of us should be doing anyway, and therefore it shouldn't impact the buying decisions.
Also, beware of run on sentances.
Dan 57
Well Known Member
Yes Scott, there are many things I question, even myself sometimes
What I wonder here is the contradiction between Van's published performance takeoff/landing figures, and what you are saying regarding the better takeoff/landing performance of A versions vs non-A versions.
Since you and I own a -6, I just took this screenshot of the performance as published by Van's on their website.
Takeoff distances for the -6, with the 3 different engines, are quoted as 325/300/270, and the ones for the -6A being 335/300/270.
Landing distance are all quoted at 300.
This sure is no reflection of any disadvantage for the taildragger version...
What I wonder here is the contradiction between Van's published performance takeoff/landing figures, and what you are saying regarding the better takeoff/landing performance of A versions vs non-A versions.
Since you and I own a -6, I just took this screenshot of the performance as published by Van's on their website.
Takeoff distances for the -6, with the 3 different engines, are quoted as 325/300/270, and the ones for the -6A being 335/300/270.
Landing distance are all quoted at 300.
This sure is no reflection of any disadvantage for the taildragger version...
RV8JD
Well Known Member
And spelling!
Those are distance numbers are for a rather old airplane model that I do not know who the pilot (s) was/were.Yes Scott, there are many things I question, even myself sometimes
What I wonder here is the contradiction between Van's published performance takeoff/landing figures, and what you are saying regarding the better takeoff/landing performance of A versions vs non-A versions.
Since you and I own a -6, I just took this screenshot of the performance as published by Van's on their website.
Takeoff distances for the -6, with the 3 different engines, are quoted as 325/300/270, and the ones for the -6A being 335/300/270.
Landing distance are all quoted at 300.
View attachment 54431
This sure is no reflection of any disadvantage for the taildragger version...
All of the published data for each airplane model is completely honest, and in some cases may reflect what was attained in testing at the time, but does not necessarily indicate the limit of what is possible. There is always the possibility of errors on the web site as well.
The RV-14 and 14A testing is much more recent and I can vouch for the validity (I was the pilot for the 14A testing)
I don’t have an RV-6…. I have an RV-6A (which I know for a fact I can takeoff and land shorter than an equivalently equipped RV-6, if I had to).
Roadjunkie1
Well Known Member
And comma splices......And spelling!
If you need to ask which plane to build/fly, I think the decision is pretty clear already.. go with the “a” model. Just remember that a tailwheel RV pilot can fly ANY RV, while a “a” model only pilot can only fly other nosewheel RVs. I’m hesitant to say that all tailwheel RV pilots can fly ALL other tailwheel planes, because tailwheel RVs are some of the easiest tailwheel aircraft out there.. you really shouldn’t get too comfortable thinking other tailwheel planes are as easy and forgiving.
Attachments
walkman
Well Known Member
Spell Czech!And spelling!
rocketman1988
Well Known Member
I would agree with practicing. The point is, it doesn't matter whether the plane is a TD or ND; a proficient pilot is a proficient pilot.
rocketman1988
Well Known Member
"... Just remember that a tailwheel RV pilot can fly ANY RV, while a “a” model only pilot can only fly other nosewheel RVs. ..."
What an absolutely silly statement. I fly an RV-10. It is a nose wheel aircraft. I can also fly any other RV (well, the -3 and -4 are kind of small for me so I probably wouldn't) but you get the idea.
It's not about the plane; it's about the pilot.
What an absolutely silly statement. I fly an RV-10. It is a nose wheel aircraft. I can also fly any other RV (well, the -3 and -4 are kind of small for me so I probably wouldn't) but you get the idea.
It's not about the plane; it's about the pilot.
And on the flipside, you will probably never see a ground looped nose wheel aircraft, yet insurance rates tells us it is QUITE common with tail wheels.
If you are a Tailwheel rated pilot, then ok, I’m sure you can fly all other RVs, but what I meant is if you are only a nosewheel pilot, and haven’t gotten instruction and Tailwheel experience, then no, you can’t just jump in the Tailwheel RV models.. I don’t care if you think you know how to land an “a” model.. I would almost guarantee that you will damage a Tailwheel RV if you haven’t flown one. Just because you have 10,000 hours, you fly a -10.. if you are not a Tailwheel pilot, you really should stick to the “a” models until you get some instruction.
...on the flipside .... I see what you did there
MacCool
Well Known Member
Good lord, I certainly hope so. But take heart...it will come up again.
Wait! We haven’t talked about which one is easier to prime and why.
