What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Torn: 7A Vs 7

Bugsy

Bugsy

Well Known Member
I know this has been whipped to death, but I torn between the tric and the tail dragger. I put in the order for the QB 7A but am pestered with the thought to change it to a -7

I have 3 boys (oldest is 15) and want them to be able to gain hours on our new toy. The safe simple side of me says, make it a fixed prop 7A and keep it simple.

The hair on fire side says "you want to be like every other cherokee driver on the ramp?"

So I guess the question is, can I take a youngster that just got his ticket and safely operate a -7
 
Taildragger!

Paul,
My preference would be the taildragger. When learning to fly, it's just as easy to learn one as the other. With the taildragger, one learns to use his feet right off the bat. The only people who have problems are people who have learned in tricycles and have not yet learned to use their feet.
 
All I can say is, if I were your boys I would be like... "Dad, why did you build us a nosedragger"!?!

Switch it up!

Like Mel says, people have been learning how to fly on conventional gear forever!

:) CJ
 
I really don't think your boys will have any trouble going 'dragger.

One thing to point out though is that an -A version of an RV is hardly being "like every other Cherokee driver." I'd like to see a Cherokee do what any RV-A can do! :D


Regards,
 
If this 42 y/o with somewhat diminished brain and reflex functions can make the transition from trikes to TDs successfully, so will your youngins.
 
Argument for the A

In response to Mel's dig above, -A pilots are taildragger pilots who have learned to use their brains. We care more about the mission and flying than playing around on the ground and practicing ground based aerobatics. <sorry Mel, one broadside deserves a countering salvo>

John's comment doesn't even warrant a response. I am surprised I can stand to visit the hangar, eat the food and drink the booze of a man who is so clearly misguided in his choice of airplanes.

In all seriousness though, you can't go wrong with either plane. A few of the pros and cons from my perspective are:

With the taildragger you have the added challenge of becoming nimble with your feet from the outset, and you have the constant worry of ending up on your nose if you aren't mindful of your taxiing habits (just happend to a friend of mine who is a multi-thousand hour ATP - he was in an Super Cub though). Keep in mind this is simply my 500 hours of nosewheel time vs. 3 hours of tailwheel time talking. If you go with a smaller engine (320) you may end up not having much usable baggage capacity. Visibility is okay but not great while on the ground. I don't think wingtip landing/taxi lights will be a good option for the taildragger since the ground stance will necessitate different angles for the lights thus reducing your night taxiing visibility.

With the 7A you have great visibility on the ground, usually will have better CG that allows more baggage capacity and are better able to use wingtip landing/taxi lights. On the negative side, the nose gear may not support a hard landing. The newer models seem to be more robust, but they aren't Cessnas. The nosegear may get in the way of a 4-into-1 exhaust. I am checking into this now. Also, the main gear attach towers are just forward of the spar and may interfere with foot room if you take your feet off of the rudder pedals in cruise.

The final consideration is aesthetics, which is of course purely subjective. I prefer a side by side plane to have a nosewheel and a single or tandem to be a taildragger.
 
Sorry if you took this as a "DIG".

My "dig" was not aimed at "A" pilots. It was directed toward people who have learned to fly in tricycle gear aircraft. And it is a proven fact that many of them have not learned to properly use their feet. Yes, there are exceptions.
The true test is; people who have flown only tricycles need training to transition to taildraggers. People who have learned to fly taildraggers have no problem transitioning into tricycles. You are correct that both airplanes are great. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
But my point was that people who start out in taildraggers have no more problems learning than those who start out in tricycles.
 
Last edited:
One vote for tail dragger

I started a 7a and converted it for a 7.
After a year of flying a taildragger I just found it more fun.
In addition, I plan to use grass strips. Given the questions of nose wheels on grass I just felt better with the tail wheel version.
The downsides are ground handling and possibly higher insurance. Both I am willing to live with.
 
I can't believe how easy it is to land my -4 with 25 hrs tailwheel and 22 in the rv's (and really it was around 10 hrs when I felt totally comfortable). Ground handling is a joke (knock on wood).

Easy easy easy, with training and a touch of attention to detail.

If you're questioning it now you need to go with your gut. The nagging doubt will only get worse. Worst case scenario is you need a few more hours dual before you or your boys get comfortable. Let'em learn in a TD even if it's not the RV, then they get that rare badge of accomplishment and never have to question if they can do it later.
 
7 vs 7A

You really opened a can of worms.
I have 600+ hours in taildraggers, 400+ in a RV-6. If I had it to do all over again, I would build a tricycle. There are three reasons for this. First, there are days that I will not fly the taildragger due to excessive crosswinds, but the tricycles seem to handle OK. Second, the CG is behind the main gear, so the tail naturally wants to be up front when moving on the ground. Sooner or later, it will (there are those who have ground looped, .......). Third, it is difficult to see around the nose when taxiing - big blind spot. I almost collided with another RV at OSH because I could not see him. Can't see the right side of the runway until the nose comes up. Can't see the right side of the taxiway when I am worried about kids, deer, and golf carts.
Having said that, I would not trade my 6 for anything.
Taildragger flying is not for everyone, and it will be harder for your sons, regardless of what the others say. Will your spouse learn too? Can she handle, or want to try, a taildragger?
 
Always 2 cents left

Wow, just when I thought evrything was on the table we hear more, and all of it good input to someone trying to make an important and expensive decision.

Yes I would like my wife to be able to fly it, but that probably wishful thinking. realistically me and the boys.
 
Paul,

I've been thru this exact same thing...I asked the same questions (except I have no children), and in the end, I decided on my own.

This answer to this question lay strictly with you. No matter what anyone on here says, it's a personal choice. Both types will argue to the end that one is better than the other.

I just think it's really cool that we have the choice!! There are people out there that would love to have a -4, but don't because it's a tailwheel only. I'd love to have a -10 (if I could afford one)...but it doesn't have the option of a taildragger. In the end, I WANTED a taildragger.

Shouldn't be a question of what you need...this is a complete luxury to have an airplane...get what you WANT, then learn to fly it!

:)
 
Opinion only - I love all RVs

Paul,
As a die-hard taildragger lover, I can only recommend the little wheel on the back. I taught tailwheel transitions in a Luscombe for years and Mel is correct, your sons won't know any difference if they are trained on the taildragger first.

I have attempted to talk several of my friends into buiding taildraggers versus the "A" model - some have and some haven't, but at the end of the day I'm glad to see you building, especially an RV no matter the model. ;)

I didn't see it mentioned but, it seems like the A models don't bring as much on the resale market. Plus all of the other reasons mentioned.

Obviously there are many good reasons to build an "A" or Van wouldn't have designed them. I do resent that I can't get an RV-10 without the nosewheel, but that's another matter.
Good luck with your decision.
 
Last edited:
I'm 100% with Chad on this. Go with your gut feel. 5-10 years from now you'll be kicking yourself if you didn't.

My .02.

b,
dr
 
Antony, you are welcome to my hangar anytime, even though you are assembling a nosedragger!

:D

Mel, pay no attention to him. He knows not what he says! (He was just toying with you. He is a joker like me.) I need to introduce him to the ways of a tailwheel!

;)

Bugs, back in the day I told young Chadwick to build what he wants. I am building my dream plane and I think everyone else should do the same!

Build what you WANT to own and fly!

The tailwheeler WILL teach your sons much about aircraft handling!

Never stop learning!

:) CJ
 
FWIW

The true test is; people who have flown only tricycles need training to transition to taildraggers. People who have learned to fly taildraggers have no problem transitioning into tricycles. You are correct that both airplanes are great. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
But my point was that people who start out in taildraggers have no more problems learning than those who start out in tricycles.
Click to expand...

My first dozen hours, and my first solo, were in a taildragger, and I'm glad they were. I only have my experience to go by, but if I had it to do again, I would do it the same way.

That being said, I chose to build a trike after discussing it with a couple transition instructors and several builders. Everyone said they were both excellent aircraft and didn't express a preference. I chose a trike because I thought it would be easier to handle on the ground. I've yet to test that hypothesis, but I take some comfort in knowing that more than one builder has converted from one to the other with little difficulty.

Good luck whatever you decide.
 
panhandler1956 said:
I do resent that I can't get an RV-10 without the nosewheel, but that's another matter.
Good luck with your decision.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, the 10 would look better with retracts; and so would most RV's! You don't see birds flying around with their legs always hanging in the wind...:D

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
I think you should build what you want.

Just for the heck of it, here's my story:

I learned to fly at age 20 in a '46 Aeronca Champ. I did my first solo in this airplane and used it on some of my early cross-country work. I also have time in a Luscombe, a Piper Pacer and about 5 hours of time in a Stearman PT-17. I have more tailwheel time than tricycle time.

I love taildraggers. My RV has a nosegear. I like the looks of both versions, and could think of no compelling reason not to put a nosewheel on my RV. Without fairly extensive modifications, RVs are poor rough field aircraft. I plan on flying the RV cross-county and for local fun flights. After a long day of flying, when it's time to land after dark with a gusting crosswind at a strange airport, a nosewheel is really nice to have. That must mean I'm a poor pilot. So be it. The nosewheel costs almost no speed, is cheaper to insure, and on the -8, doesn't cost any weight since the gear boxes are eliminated.

My next plane will be a low and slow bush plane that I can fly into my family's ranch strips. It will have a tailwheel. Taking off on one of our strips (with the Pacer) involves a high speed taxi up a hill, doing a 180 when the momentum drops and then bouncing down the hill, across the gramma grass (think bumpy) covered pasture and down the valley before the neighbor's fence. Not gonna do it in my RV.

Build what you want.

Guy
 
Guy Prevost said:
My next plane will be a low and slow bush plane that I can fly into my family's ranch strips. It will have a tailwheel. Taking off on one of our strips (with the Pacer) involves a high speed taxi up a hill, doing a 180 when the momentum drops and then bouncing down the hill, across the gramma grass (think bumpy) covered pasture and down the valley before the neighbor's fence. Not gonna do it in my RV.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. I spent a good part of one summer, living in a motel across the street from the Aviat Husky/Pitt's plant in Afton, Wyoming. Even flew up for a tour about 14 years ago.

Personally, I think the Husky is near perfection when it comes to a hearty taildragger; and it's something that I'd love to have.

My 6A decision was based on practicality of it's intended mission, which is 3-400 mile cross-country flight. I also took crosswinds into consideration; and the fact that I expected to keep the wheel pants on.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
I love my 8, but alas build what you want, you will love it regardless.

If view over the nose is an issue, I'd suggest you put more cushions under you. After I had about 45 hours in Mine, Kahuna stuck me in the front seat of his, and MAJIC, I could see so much better.

A 1 inch lift later, and a Bell tailwheel, and I can see over nose while taxiing. I find the three-points much easier as well, as I am still looking at the runway out in front.

I came in with 250 tailwheel time, but not having flown much in 7 years, and I am old. Any yougster should have no problem with the tailwheel.
 
My Thoughts...

I am building a 7A. My advice would be to build the 7.

I was a low time pilot of 100 hours when I purchased my kit. While building, I purchased a tail wheel Citabria. I do not understand where hard arguments come into play. I was scared into buying the nose wheel (insurance handling etc.). In truth I do not see a big difference in degree of difficulty from one to the other. They both fly fine. Which do you think looks better? I think that is the real question. I do wish the gear was retractable. That would answer the whole thing for me.

A couple of pieces of information come to mind:

1) If you do not buy a tail wheel you will not be able to grow hair on your chest.

2) About the tail wheel version... They fixed that problem a long time ago.

3) The tail wheel versions do not need the little kickstands.

The real question is what the panel should look like, and should it be a tip-up or a slider... should I add smoke :)

Have fun building!!!
 
You can't do aerobatics in a 7a

'cus your a weeny that doesn't know how to use his feet.

I beg to differ...:)

Frank
 
Apart from the ground handling differences, there are several practical considerations in favor of the TD.

It's easier to build, perhaps a tad faster and lighter, definitely cheaper.

It's easier to maintain FWF - nothing in the way beneath the engine, and it's conveniently higher off the ground.

There are no jungle-gym, trip-and-fall, always-in-the-way, gear trusses under foot. (This was the deal killer years ago when I considered a 9A before the 7 was introduced. If Van's could blatantly disregard such human factors, what else might be poorly designed?)

Easier step up.

Easier to load the baggage area from the ground.

John Siebold
Boise, ID
 
RV7ator said:
There are no jungle-gym, trip-and-fall, always-in-the-way, gear trusses under foot. (This was the deal killer years ago when I considered a 9A before the 7 was introduced. If Van's could blatantly disregard such human factors, what else might be poorly designed?)
Click to expand...

Those "gear trusses" have no effect, whatsover on leg room, getting in or out, or hitting bottoms of legs. They are a non-event, and certainly not a "deal killer" to anyone I know.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
L.Adamson said:
Those "gear trusses" have no effect, whatsover on leg room, getting in or out, or hitting bottoms of legs. They are a non-event, and certainly not a "deal killer" to anyone I know.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
Click to expand...
Sorry, but to us short guys, they DO have an effect on leg room. I've flown quite a few and they are VERY uncomfortable for me.
 
Mel, I concur!

I am short too and it gets you right in the back of the knee!

It is kinda like that pullout sofa that has the bar right down the middle of the bed. Sure, you can sleep on it, but it sure is nice to be back in your real bed!

;) CJ
 
go TW!

I was considering the 7/7A a few years ago. Decided I would go get checked out on a cub and C140 to see if I liked it. At first it was frustrating but in the end am firmly in the TW camp. My wife does not have any use for flying but all the kids love it. I find myself lately leaning toward an 8 over a 7 though so I have a different dilemma.
 
Picture yourself 10 years from now.

Thinking ahead to what you are going to want in the future should be key. Sounds like your kids would be able to learn in a taildragger easily enough. I went with an 8A for economic reasons, I don't have any tailwheel time and don't want to spend the money to get checked out, at least not yet. My insurance is also going to be less with the wheel up front. The biggest reason was if the taildragger provided better roughfield capability then I probably would have went with that, but from what I gather it isn't much better if at all. I have to admit that I like the looks of the 8 when it is on the ground, but I just couldn't justify doing it on that alone. When you are done, you are going to be happy with whatever you have at first, maybe forever. But down the road, don't leave room for doubt, build what you want.

Randy
tail complete
QB Wings
Slow build Fuse, installing tail
finishing kit ordered
 
Isn't it nice to have this option, I don't think you could go wrong with either of these planes. I think if all you want to do is go flying the nose dragger is hard to beat but if you want the romance of flying... well I think that can only be had by tail draggers. Up until we bought a Maule Rocket I didn't have but a couple of hours tail time and I can tell you I was to the point of being bored. It's kinda wierd that you can go up and do the exact same kind of flying with a tail dragger that you do with a nose dragger and it's so much more fun. It might just be the fact that your flight doesn't end untill the wind maker stops instead of when your mains touch tera firma. I duno. It's hard to explain, I do know if I had kids I wanted to learn to fly they would be doing it in tail dragger. The people that I know that have learned that way are better pilots. When I got my licence my instructor had little tail dragger time and his bad habbits were taught to me, it wasn't until I spent time flying with my dad that I really learned how to fly.

If you do go ahead and build the straight 7 you'll know what I'm talking about, one day when your done flying and you walk away and look over your shoulder you'll get that feeling in your stomach that nose draggers will never have. Romance.

Just get building!!

Ted
 
I have been following this thread the last day or so and a lot of very valid points have been made on both sides of the issue. So much so, that one would consider the choice to be merely personal preference; there is no clear winner. What has surprised me is that no one has mentioned the fact that quite a few nose gear aircraft have been flipping over in grass strip applications. So many that Vans has come out with a "fix" for the problem. I have had a look at the fix, and it while will certainly reduce the chances of this occurrence, the nose gear itself is still there and it will still bend if the wrong conditions are met. One of the main reasons that the Van's series of aircraft has been so successful is that it is the fastest type of plane out there that can still attend local grass strip fly ins. Those with nose gear versions are really going to have to know for sure that the strip where they are landing is going to be perfectly level with no holes or bumps. Not only the strip itself but the taxi and ramp areas, as a lot of these incidents have happened while the aircraft was moving relatively slowly. There is mention of the fact that insurance for the A versions is less, but this will change if more of these flip-overs occur. One of the main reason's for choosing a nose wheel verses a tail wheel was a hope for an improved safety factor. If you intend on always staying on pavement than this will may still be true. However if you have to do a forced approach into a soft field some time you have to be aware that while the tail wheel version may go over onto it's back you should count on that happening with the nose gear version. This one fact alone greatly reduces the safe factor of the A versions to such a degree tips the scales have to be tipped in favour of the tail dragger. Safety should be the main criteria of the decision, followed by all other factors. Yes there have been thousands of safe flight hours with the nose wheel version but those flip over incidents can not be ignored if you are making a decision regarding which model to purchase.
I have flown quite a few different tail wheel aircraft and the easiest to fly of them all is the RV7. For all of these reasons we have recently converted a 7a to a 7 before first flight. Should you decide to go with the nose gear version we have a brand new motor mount and gear legs for a 7a that are available for sale.
 
flyboy96 said:
one day when your done flying and you walk away and look over your shoulder you'll get that feeling in your stomach that nose draggers will never have. Romance.
Click to expand...

I still have a "thing" for the B-29

I can't get over it........

L.Adamson
 
One more vote for taildragger -7

I also have to throw in my $0.02 worth of opinion for the taildragger. The nosewheel design just seems too fragile and that video of seeing a -7A flip over upon landing on a grass strip just seals the decision. I was totally infatuated with the -7A at first, especially after getting to fly one with an angle valve IO-360 from the left seat for almost half an hour :D but I want to operate frequently from turf runways so the -7 choice is a no-brainer for me.

Unlearning 500+ hours of Cherokee nosedragger flying might be a small challenge but I'm sure I'll overcome it and be ready by the time my -7 is completed... preview plans are on the way today, and I just reserved my N-number too!
 
Last edited:
Neal@F14 said:
Unlearning 500+ hours of Cherokee nosedragger flying might be a small challenge but I'm sure I'll overcome it and be ready by the time my -7 is completed
Click to expand...

Neal, I'll doubt you have any trouble at all. I had 350+ hours in Ercoupes and TriPacers before converting over to tailwheel airplanes. As far as which version is best I'm a strongly in the tailwheel camp. My first RV was a trike, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I do the tailwheel version. I do a lot of landings at grass strips, some of which aren't as smooth as pavement. I was always paranoid about damaging the nosewheel.

Bottom line is it all boils down to perosnal preference, but from a functional point of view I favor the TW.
 
Personally, I prefer the trike arrangement for the better visibility they offer, but... (probably a naive question) wouldn't the instable TW arrangement be more likely to nose over onto the spinning prop, or flip the plane around into a ground loop if one of the mains grabs the same types of obstructions that troubles nose wheels?

I realize that the "small diameter pole vaulting" nose wheel orientation has had a problem digging in and folding over, but shouldn't it protect the prop/engine to some extent?
 
Last edited:
wouldn't the instable TW arrangement be more likely to nose over onto the spinning prop, or flip the plane around into a ground loop if one of the mains grabs the same types of obstructions that troubles nose wheels?

Tailwheels are not unstable....they are "differently stable". They will not self correct an unstable or improper landing, but they will not start to loop unless some force is causing them to want to...in other words, if you land straight, without any side drift, they will continue to track straight, unless som eother force upsets them.

On really rough stips the TW gear seem to absorb the bumbs just fine...each reacts independantly to whatever they encounter.

Some taildraggers are easier to get up on the nose than others, depending on how far forward the gear are. It seems that the 7's are pretty tail heavy, and very difficult to get on the nose. I cannot find a single 7 or 9 nose over accident...if anyone knows I would be insterested.

I also cannot find any ground loops which result from strip conditions, and in my tw experience, it seems that ground loops are caused by improper landing or dealing with crosswinds, but I cannot remember hearing of any caused by an uneven landing strip.
 
medium
 
Paul -

If you can't make your mind up fall back on aesthetics to make the call.

Ask a 7A driver to park their plane alongside a 7. There is no two ways about it, the 7 looks about 50% faster and 50% sexier (in reality there is only a couple of mph between them but they do look significantly different).

Taildraggers ooze style and look like they are flying even when they are not. Trikes generally look like aeroplanes temporarily parked on wheelbarrow.

You wont need a couple of drag inducing steps hanging off the side of you pride and joy either.

Just my very biased 2 cents worth.

Cheers,

JON.

PS Learnt to fly in a C172 and progressed to a Super Decathlon after about 40 hours. I was all over the strip when I conducted my first take off and my instructor just sat there laughing while I mowed the long grass on either side of the short stuff. The wig wags didn't last long and I have never looked back - tail draggers are simply far more fun to fly even if you have to be a little bit more "on the ball" (which is not a bad thing!).
 
Jon Clements said:
Paul -

If you can't make your mind up fall back on aesthetics to make the call.

Ask a 7A driver to park their plane alongside a 7. There is no two ways about it, the 7 looks about 50% faster and 50% sexier (in reality there is only a couple of mph between them but they do look significantly different).
Click to expand...

I've said it before, but the reason I finally went with the 6A, is because of looks on the "ground". IMO, the A model looked more substantial, and I wasn't thrilled with the looks of the short stubby wings in "squat" mode...:D This is very obvious, when looking at the Van's 7 converted to 7A pics; as taildraggers were meant for tandem seating!:)

"8's" weren't in production then; and I still think they look much better as taildraggers, as do the "A" models while in flight. That retractable 4 with looks of a P-51, beats them all, in regards to style and sex appeal. And some of those Rocket/F1's just look downright mean and powerful!

L.Adamson -- putting it in proper context
 
Just a suggestion

If you guys are torn when ordering the fusalage kit, order the tailwheel weldment and instal it. Also drill holes in the bulkheads for the rudder cables. This will allow you to change your mind and build a taildragger later on if so desired. The decision would ultimetely be made when you order your engine mount.

Jarvis
 
Oh brother....

I purposely avoided this thread, but I am bored, so what the heck;

Tandem only for tailwheels? Staggerwing, Cessna 120,40,70,80,85,90,95 Fairchild, Stinson, Taylorcraft, my goodness, probably as many models side by side as there are tandem, maybe more.....

Nosewheel appearance? P38, P39, Beach Mentor (hey, thats a tandem, with a nose wheel?), Shrike Commander, and a few others already mentioned are pretty nice looking rides.

Tailwheel airplanes do take more attention on the ground and more precise technique landing. Visibility in most tailwheel airplanes is a liability, not so much in the 8 but the 7 is poor and the 6 is really poor, but none are bad in comparison to my biplane.
There are very few nose wheel airplanes that I would be comfortable taking into rough strips, not just RV's, but most where not designed well for unimproved fields. Put a big tire on the front, a fork to support it, and keep the prop up, why not.

I personally think tail wheel aircraft are more fun to operate. That is why I own two and am building a third. But that does not mean nose wheel aircraft are not fun or challenging. I don't like the term "tricycle gear". It sounds demeaning. A German pilot being chased down by a P-38 where probably not calling the P-38 pilot a wimp. Pretty sure about that one.
 
Hideing the gear

JonJay said:
Nosewheel appearance? P38, P39, Beach Mentor (hey, thats a tandem, with a nose wheel?), Shrike Commander, and a few others already mentioned are pretty nice looking rides.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting and probably coincidental, but every nose gear airplane you listed hides the landing gear right after take-off.
 
I'm going to leave that one alone Mel, ha!

Mel said:
I find it interesting and probably coincidental, but every nose gear airplane you listed hides the landing gear right after take-off.
Click to expand...

...they all look pretty mean on the ground though......
 
A Few Quotes to Fly By

Well this gathered alot more steam than I ever expected, good arguments on both sides. The best advice yet is to add the tailwheel weldment and make the decision when ordering the finishing kit, by that time i'll have had more time in both. Thats what I'ma gonnna doo.

Still leaning 7A, but that photo of the dude up on his nose does make the little hairs on the back of the neck stand up. Plan to use this thing X-country to strange airfields where strange winds may kick up. Flew into kitty hawk a couple years ago that would have scared the **** out of me in a tail dragger.

But dang they look cool. So to all who weighed in...my deepest thanks, I'll buy the -7 drivers a shot of 18yr Glenfiditch at OSH and the -7A drivers a grape soda, just kidding... And decide which group I belong in after counting chest hairs prior to ordering my FWF this fall.

And to demonstrate my appreciation...A few Quotes to "live by"...err "fly by".

"Aim towards the Enemy." - Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher

"Cluster bombing from B-52s are very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed to always hit the ground."

"If the enemy is in range, so are you." - Infantry Journal

"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." - U.S. Air Force Manual

"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." - General Macarthur

"Tracers work both ways." - U.S. Army Ordnance

"If you see a bomb technician running, follow him." - USAF Ammo Troop

"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death .. I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing." - At the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base Kadena, Japan

"You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3." - Paul F. Crickmore (test pilot)

"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."

"Blue water Navy truism: There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky."

"If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe."

"When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash."

"Without ammunition, the USAF would be just another expensive flying club."

Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."

"Just remember, if you crash because of weather, your funeral will be held on a sunny day."

"Never fly in the same cockpit with someone braver than you."

"There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime." - Sign over squadron ops desk at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, 1970

"If something hasn't broken on your helicopter, it's about to."

Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there."

"You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to taxi to the terminal."

As the test pilot climbs out of the experimental aircraft, having torn off the wings and tail in the crash landing, the crash truck arrives, the rescuer sees a bloodied pilot and asks "What happened?". The pilot's reply: "I don't know, I just got here myself!" Ray Crandell (Lockheed test pilot)
 
My 2 cents

Tailwheels are just more fun!!!!
Taildraggers are not harder to fly, they are just different than nose draggers. You can handle any kind of reasonable crosswind and they do much better on rough strips. What you can't get away with is learning to fly in a nose-wheel airplane and then flying a TW without someone showing you how to handle the differences.
Remember, thousands of pilots learned to fly during WWII in tailwheels.
Don't listen to the macho BS about taildraggers, get some decent instruction and go have fun.
 
Now Randy

We've spent decades building up this image and here you go blowing it all away.
 
Randy Walls said:
Remember, thousands of pilots learned to fly during WWII in tailwheels.
Click to expand...

Yes they did, but why?...........

WWII taildraggers evolved from the early days (including WWI) of landing with the wind in large un-improved fields. Forward visibility was always a sore point, and very much so, with numerous WWII aircraft.

As the war was coming to an end, aviation designers got a bit smarter, and put the wheel up front, to avoid forward "sight" problems such as one would find in a Cessna 195 or F4U Corsair. After all, the need to land from any direction in a farmers field had greatly decreased.

It was my uncle, who spent many years with the U.S. Air Force, beginning at the end of WWII; that actually talked me into the practicality of the nosewheel. He too, began with taildraggers, and finished with the KC-135.

And he's correct in regards to visibility while still on the ground in a tail down situation. I know, as I took my Pitt's S2B training back in the early 90's. This same Pitt's clobbered an out of gas tow vehicle on the ramp, because of a setting sun and lack of constant forward visibility.

Personally, I have nothing against taildraggers. My favorite aircraft is the P-51, and my father owned a surplus WWII BT-13 trainer when I was a young kid. He learned to fly in Stearmans. If I had tons of excess cash, first on the list would be two tail draggers, an Aviat Husky for back country, and possibly an F1 if I have any desire to build again.

But my 6A decision was based on practicality. It's side by side, as I prefer flying with company on the side, versus all the years of riding tandem on a motorcycle. The nosewheel is there, because it's modern, and does away with visibility and certain crosswind issues.

I don't believe the RV to be a "macho" enough machine, that it requires being a taildragger to be cool. We imitate P-51 Mustangs, but we're not. I imitated one, even though I have a nosewheel. Maybe I just call it a one engined P-38 because it has invasion stripes, which single engine , nose wheel P-39's did not. But then, I'd need a yoke instead of a stick; and I think the sticks are more macho...

L.Adamson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top