What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Tricycle or Tailwheel...?

TCONROY

TCONROY

Well Known Member
My intent is not to start any type of wars here. I'm finishing up the wings for my planned RV-7A, but am having some question as to the strength of the nosewheel after hearing and reading about several tip-over accidents (nose gear failures).

My initial reason for wanting the -7A was more capabilities in IFR (higher crosswind components). I fly a C-140 and love tailwheel aircraft!! It has nothing to do with liking one over the other, but rather my initial assumption that the -7A could do more and go more places in higher winds.

But after reading a lot on the forums about how delicate you must be with the tricycle gear, I wonder if either model really has any advantage over the other. Is my initial assumption about the -7A being able to land in higher crosswinds incorrect due to the fact that you must be incredibly careful to make very good landings in it each and every time?

I know there are some mods to bring the nosewheel up a bit and to create somewhat of a skid in the nosewheel fairing.

I'm about to commit to a fuselage kit and must decide. I think the -7 is sexier on the ramp, and am beginning to think it may be safer due to the lack of nosewheel issue. Looking for any help, advice, tips, something that can help sway me one way or another. If the nosewheel design is fundamentally flawed and weak, I really don't want to go that route. I know I'd be happy with either airframe, but I do want the one that will provide the most safety and capabilities in all conditions (soft fields, higher winds..etc)
 
gear leg mount takes up cabin leg space too...

there are plenty of calamities that can kick you in a taildragger but the number of nose gear failures was a factor for me in transitioning away from the tri-gear model. another notable factor for me is the loss of leg space in the cabin from the gear mount... it is quite a bit of an impact if you want to pull your legs back during cruise. in the end i am sure that i would have grown comfortable with it but it was a factor for me.

during construction there have been many times when access into the fuselage has been much easier with a taildragger than it would be with the tail up... routinely i managed to just reach in and down where it would have required climbing in and out, a platform, or a second person.
 
Noseover Rates are the Same

The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear models. Hope that helps.

Hans
 
I just spent 3 days with Mike Seager in Oregon. The grass strip we flew off of looks beautiful and in great shape. But was rough enough to bounce us in the air on roll out. I was flying 477RV a taildragging -7, but noticed the blue -6a looked to be a pretty good shape. No nosewheel damage that I could see;). Maybe Mike is just lucky, but I'd wager money it's technique. Give him a call, he'll be straight up with you. If you want to know about flying RV's, Mike is the man.

Vernonia Airport midfield looking west
2010-05-19093309.jpg


my trusty steed for 3 days
steed477RV.jpg
 
I have a C170B and I built a RV9 Taildragger because I like to fly tailwheels. I also like the looks of the taildragger models a little better. The nose gear problems on the RV's reinforced my decision, and in case of an engine failure and an off field landing I thought the tailwheel would handle it better. The insurance is a little higher priced for a tailwheel. The taildragger 9 is a bit of a learning curve to get it to plant itself on landings but the takeoffs are a breeze but a good bit more rudder is required for takeoffs due to it's light weight and engine torque. It is definitely harder to land than my 170 as far a a smooth touchdown is concerned but it is easy to handle once it is planted with less tendency to ground loop than the 170 has. Overall I am very happy with the taildragger. I think the shorter wing models are a little easier to plant on landing as there is less wing area to cause floating or bouncing. The gear legs are springy and will launch you into the air again if you let it drop in from any altitude at all. Botched landings are very easy to recover from, any addition of power makes the plane fly again. Airspeed control on final and a lot of patience in the flare is necessary to make the taildraggers land smooth. You can't force them down as you can a Cessna. Definitely more tecnique is required for landing the rv's but it is a fun learning curve. Building the taildragger is a little easier since there are no gear mounts to put in the fuselage and no nose gear or wheel fairing to assemble.
 
apkp777 said:
Does anyone have actual crosswind numbers in the tail wheel VS nose wheel? I can't imagine it's any difference.
Click to expand...

There are no published numbers. If you do a search in this forum or search the Matronics archives, you'll find plenty of anecdotal information, including some amazing claims.

In the end, it is probably more driven by pilot technique than where the little wheel is located.
 
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear
Click to expand...


What report? Published and written by who? Based on information derived from what source? What is the definition of rates?

The only databases I am awre of are FAA and NTSB. The problems in comparing rates in this particular case stem from the number of TDs vs the number of Trigears flying. Also the circumstances of the noseover. Off airport landings on other than smooth flat surfaces often end up as noseovers no matter the gear type but I believe the main interest re: RVs are the noseovers on actual runways.

Anecdotaly I have read about lot's of instances of RV noseovers (on airport) but do not recall any of them being taildraggers.


I would love to see the report.
 
Last edited:
The majority of my time logged is TW but I went NW. Many years ago when I went on my $40k free ride, both Ken Scott and Van said that they prefer the NW. Ken liked the better visibility and both liked the fact that the geometry of the gear legs allows you to get the tail down lower on landing.

Of course I made my choice before I was aware of the nose overs in the trikes. The new nose fork design and perhaps better pilot technique seem to have quieted this tendency down a lot. I am aware of an incident in San Diego a couple years ago which didn't result in a nose over and then I saw one posted here recently about a nose over but I believe it was due to an issue on landing. Still, an off field emergency landing in a NW airplane will probably have a bigger tendency to land you on your back I would think.

Both the NW and TW will work well for the flying I do. In my opinion, both look dead sexy but in different ways!
 
No Fears

Hi Trevor,

I had no tail time when I started my project, but over 2000 hours of fixed wing time. I wanted at TD. I was fortunate to get some dual TD time with friends and did my transition with Mike and TD endorsement.

I didn't do my first flight but took it a hour later. I was careful and took it slow with the winds. 530 hours so far without incident. In fact, the only scare I've had was on take off. Work up to the crosswinds. It works, but have a back up airport

I've been all over the country and try to avoid significant cross wind scenarios. You'll find the RV is a great handling TD plane. Have no fears and enjoy. Plus, I just like the looks of the tail dragger RV's!!!
 
NG vs TD

I really like the "stance" of the A model sitting on the ground, and ground handling visibility is certainly much improved over the tail wheel version.

I have flown my A model in winds that kept my TD friends on the ground. Worst case so far was about 25G35 at about 45 degrees, not a lot of fun mind you but most TD would have probably have been looking for another runway :D

As far as the NG being "delicate" well I can tell you I have abused mine more than I care to remember on a few soft fields before all the hoopla began so I know it can take a beating, I think there are just certain cercumstances that cause it to fail and/or bad technique (which I had plenty of in the beginning).

If you plan on a bunch of soft field stuff then I would opt for the TD but other than that I see no advantage. If hard fields will be 95% of your world then the NG is the way to go in my opinion. Like everything in aviation there are always compromises and no one design is perfect.
 
I have a 7 and also fly a 6A and 8A. In my experience the x-wind component is about the same for all the airplanes. So far demonstrated in the 7 is 27kts direct x-wind. A lot of work but still control left over so 30kts is probably doable. I have landed both of the A models in 25kts and again i think 30kts is very doable. Keep in mind that is for someone with lots of heavy x-wind experience. One other thing to think about in the T/W Tricycle debate is that you will go through brake pads a lot faster in the A models because you need them to turn for ground operations. Don
 
N395V said:
What report? Published and written by who? Based on information derived from what source? What is the definition of rates?

The only databases I am awre of are FAA and NTSB. The problems in comparing rates in this particular case stem from the number of TDs vs the number of Trigears flying.
Click to expand...

Is there any information on the ratio of Tail Dragger to Nose gear RVs sold or flying? It seems like about an even split but it would be nice to know the real number.
 
Trevor
I have 1100hrs in an RV4 and have flown from one end of the country to the other. I dont have exact numbers for you but I can tell you it can handle just about any crosswind thrown at you. Something else to consider is that the nose dragger is more maintenance. It takes 10 minuets to replace the tail wheel on the rare occasion that it needs it. You have less leg space with the nose wheel. And the cowl is more work to get on and off with the nose wheel. Personaly if I wasnt woried about flying a tailwheel the choice would be easy.
Ryan
 
I make that decision every time I go up. Do I take the tail wheel or the nose wheel. You know what, it doesn't matter. Flying is fun in either airplane.
 
Just some of my opinions

I have a nose wheel but would prefer a tail wheel for several reasons. These are just my opinions and for my specific situation.

  1. My wife is short and her feet can?t touch the floor due to the landing gear supports. I will have to build some sort of platform for her to rest her feet on without having it interfere with the rudder pedals.
  2. For some reason every time I drop a screw or something small, it rolls under the landing gear supports.
  3. If for some unknown reason I have a brake failure, I feel I have a slightly better chance of keeping it on the runway with a tail wheel. Under about 15knots, steering in the nose wheel is only done by breaking.
  4. When removing the cowling, I hate scraping my nose gear fairings. Not sure if there is a similar issue with the tail dragger.
  5. Although I am not too concerned about a NG collapse, I always have that feeling there could be a NG collapse somewhere in the back of my head, so I treat it a little different and land it like a tail wheel. But I do have some runway scrapes on the bottom side of the wheel pant. (but not sure if it was me or the previous owner)
  6. I don?t like the steps hanging out in the wind. But probably not that bad. But they do hurt when you hit them with your knee.:eek:
  7. It seems as though I could build a better heat shield and attach it to the engine/gear mount on a tail wheel. Better to direct the hot air out the bottom of the cowling and to shield the heat from the firewall mounted items.

As far as looking better, that depends on what type of look you are after. Sporty look = tail wheel. Luxury, cross country flyer = nose wheel. Just my opinion.
 
Walt said:
If you plan on a bunch of soft field stuff then I would opt for the TD but other than that I see no advantage. If hard fields will be 95% of your world then the NG is the way to go in my opinion. Like everything in aviation there are always compromises and no one design is perfect.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. Tail wheels will always be better soft field and nose wheels will always be better on pavement. That is the way I fly mine. RV-6A always uses the pavement, C-140 always uses the grass.
 
Good discussion

TCONROY said:
My initial reason for wanting the -7A was more capabilities in IFR (higher crosswind components). I fly a C-140 and love tailwheel aircraft!! It has nothing to do with liking one over the other, but rather my initial assumption that the -7A could do more and go more places in higher winds.
Click to expand...

This has been a good discussion. There are alot of freight companies that fly Beech 18s and DC-3s and these guys operate in ALL kinds of weather and they are not hampered by the tailwheel. Obviously, the bush guys in Alaska and else where fly in lousy weather (crosswinds, etc) with great success.

I had a guy tell me he was going to sell his tailwheel and go for a nose-dragger for the same reason you stated above. I say if you don't fly often enough to stay proficient with the tailwheel then you need to fly more - IMHO ;)
Good luck on your journey!
 
IMHO as an all round aeroplane, the TD beats the NW hands down :D

However, if your sole criteria is ability to handle X-winds, then by definition the NW will win on every occasion :rolleyes:

Andy
 
Andy Hill said:
IMHO as an all round aeroplane, the TD beats the NW hands down :D

However, if your sole criteria is ability to handle X-winds, then by definition the NW will win on every occasion :rolleyes:

Andy
Click to expand...

I would say the RVs are pretty evenly matched between the T/D and Tricycle with the T/D having a slight advantage. It is all pilot skill and the majority of pilots don't ever practice in a good stiff x-wind. Let's have a show of hands who have done touch and goes in a 25+kt crosswind on a regular basis. I would bet less than 5%. Practice is the name of the game. Don
 
Mike D said:
I have a nose wheel but would prefer a tail wheel for several reasons. These are just my opinions and for my specific situation.

  1. My wife is short and her feet can?t touch the floor due to the landing gear supports. I will have to build some sort of platform for her to rest her feet on without having it interfere with the rudder pedals.
  2. For some reason every time I drop a screw or something small, it rolls under the landing gear supports.
  3. If for some unknown reason I have a brake failure, I feel I have a slightly better chance of keeping it on the runway with a tail wheel. Under about 15knots, steering in the nose wheel is only done by breaking.
  4. When removing the cowling, I hate scraping my nose gear fairings. Not sure if there is a similar issue with the tail dragger.
  5. Although I am not too concerned about a NG collapse, I always have that feeling there could be a NG collapse somewhere in the back of my head, so I treat it a little different and land it like a tail wheel. But I do have some runway scrapes on the bottom side of the wheel pant. (but not sure if it was me or the previous owner)
  6. I don?t like the steps hanging out in the wind. But probably not that bad. But they do hurt when you hit them with your knee.:eek:
  7. It seems as though I could build a better heat shield and attach it to the engine/gear mount on a tail wheel. Better to direct the hot air out the bottom of the cowling and to shield the heat from the firewall mounted items.

As far as looking better, that depends on what type of look you are after. Sporty look = tail wheel. Luxury, cross country flyer = nose wheel. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I never use the brakes in either of my airplanes until I get to the hangar and spin them to line them up in front of the hangar, you must be doing something wrong.
 
I had the same thoughts on the NW vs TW... I was originally building a -A. Changed my mind the day I ordered the fuse! :eek: You stated you were leaning towards a -A for IFR capabilities concerning X-winds... In all honesty, how "hard" of an IMC condition do you expect to fly in this single engine ametuer built airplane? Light IFR sure. Moderate, if I HAD to. Heavy? No way. And secondly... how strong of winds do you plan on flying in?? How often do you see a 30+kt x-wind? And how often would you fly in it? I wouldn't imagine it'd be very much fun in either gear configuration.

Other than that, TW's look so much better. Lower maintenance, easier to build, cheaper, lighter, etc. I'd say the answer is clear. But I know exactly where your coming from... Like I said, I was in the same situation just a few weeks ago! See here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=57546

I'll be honest... I also flipped a coin. :D Tails = TW!
 
TCONROY said:
I think the -7 is sexier on the ramp
Click to expand...

I went with a TW for that very reason alone. I think the -A looks great also, but I just preferred a TW. I think I would have regretted going the other way based upon another factor.
 
This could go on forever........

I've had both. If I could have two, it would be one of each (-10 and a lightweight -4). Alas, that can't be and the RV-8heh was the best compromise for me.

What kind of flying do you dream of and what kind will you most likely do?
That should help your decision. They both fly equally as good. The only difference is the first and last 10 feet. The TD takes a little more finesse.

Keeping air in the nosewheel and checking the breakout force occasionally
is hardly a lot more maintenance. The thing I do miss about my -6 was backing it in the hangar by the tail and not having to crawl under the wing to air the tires. That's it!
 
danielhv said:
You stated you were leaning towards a -A for IFR capabilities concerning X-winds... In all honesty, how "hard" of an IMC condition do you expect to fly in this single engine ametuer built airplane? Light IFR sure. Moderate, if I HAD to. Heavy? No way.
Click to expand...

I fly my 7A all the way down to minimums. What does the make of plane have anything do do with IFR? But I have an WASS430, Trutrak EFIS SG AP4 with LPV and ILS. AND very good backups. No such thing as hard or soft IFR. Any IFR you venture into can turn into a approach down to minimums.
Any plane can fly IFR if equipped. Any pilot can fly IFR if trained. Geez....
 
Originally Posted by nucleus
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear models. Hope that helps.

Hans
Click to expand...

N200PF said:
Really Hans... Can you post a link to "the report"? I haven't seen that yet?

- Peter
Click to expand...

We are waiting inquiring minds want to know???????????????????
 
Last edited:
jeff beckley said:
I fly my 7A all the way down to minimums. What does the make of plane have anything do do with IFR? But I have an WASS430, Trutrak EFIS SG AP4 with LPV and ILS. AND very good backups. No such thing as hard or soft IFR. Any IFR you venture into can turn into a approach down to minimums.
Any plane can fly IFR if equipped. Any pilot can fly IFR if trained. Geez....
Click to expand...

I guess everyone has different "minimums". I'd never intentionally fly into IMC that required me to shoot an approach down to minimums. I try to plan as best as I can, and yes sometimes it may happen... but I personally wouldn't plan to do such intentionally.

Your aircraft sounds well equipped with many backups... EXCEPT a backup engine! :eek: Of course there is some inherent risk to everything flying... and the risk rises statistically with IMC operations. I fly IFR often, but usually no less than an 800' ceiling so that when Murphy comes knockin, I have a way out. Just how I feel about it, not trying to start a war. Like I said, everyone has different "minimums". Geez...
 
Don't even think of building anything other than what you really want!

Nora and I once took a slow trip from 28A to 3BS with 40 to 50 knot head winds. When we got to 3BS the runway in use had the full X-wind. I thought, "Why not try it." Sure enough, not even an RV can do that much X-wind but these planes are so capable that I thought it would be worth a try.

BTW, they had a crossing runway so we were able to land into the wind.
 
Crosswinds, tri gear vs TW

Although tailwheel airplanes are more demanding of the pilot in x-wind landings, airplanes do differ. I think control authority, runway factors and intangibles of handling as well as pilot proficiency dictate maximum tolerable x-wind component. I've not flown RV's enough to comment on them. Many of the Vans folks seem to prefer the nosewheel "A" models. After flying many different aircraft, i'll say my Pitts S-2A is by far the best crosswind landing machine I've flown. If you are proficient a direct 40 kt x-wind is no problem; in fact even more. When you get to this level your proficiency may make a difference even day to day. If winds are super strong and the landing runway has some width, you can land slightly across the runway and reduce the crosswind component. Actual landing speeds are then quite low. If proficiency is average then the nosewheel aircraft is less demanding for the pilot. YMMV. This is one opinion only. Reminds me of the story of the AC who kept calling for more flaps on short final: after landing the pilot said "Wow, that runway's short." The co-pilot, looking around, said "yeah, but it sure is wide!"
 
In all honesty said:
I was a little offended that you specifically made reference to amateur built as one that should no be flown IFR. Also I am proponent of building a plane for full IFR or strictly VFR. No such thing as light IFR. You are in it or you are not. Too many people build there planes with something like a Dynon and think they are safe for "light IFR". This give a sense of false security that might
make some take risks they normally would not.
Click to expand...
 
jeff beckley said:
I was a little offended that you specifically made reference to amateur built as one that should no be flown IFR. Also I am proponent of building a plane for full IFR or strictly VFR. No such thing as light IFR. You are in it or you are not. Too many people build there planes with something like a Dynon and think they are safe for "light IFR". This give a sense of false security that might
make some take risks they normally would not.
Click to expand...

Two things:
1. Somewhere in the builders manual it states RVs should not be flown IFR.
2. There is nothing wrong with flying IFR with any Dynon as long as it is coupled to an IFR nav source such as a G430. The same as any other EFIS.

The hard vs. light IFR thing has been beaten to death and really has very little to do with the TW vs. NW selection.
 
icon1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by nucleus
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear models. Hope that helps.

Hans
Quote:
Originally Posted by N200PF
Really Hans... Can you post a link to "the report"? I haven't seen that yet?

- Peter

We are waiting inquiring minds want to know???????????????????
Click to expand...


Has anyone seen "THE REPORT" on RV noseovers????:confused:

I and I am sure several others are really interested in reading it.
 
Kitplanes article

There is an article in this month's issue of kitplanes about RV accident rates. The magazine showed up in my mailbox yesterday, so I have not yet had time to read it. However, in skimming, I noticed that it does mention roll over accidents. I do not know how much detail is offered or what type of analysis was performed.
 
esjacoby77 said:
There is an article in this month's issue of kitplanes about RV accident rates. The magazine showed up in my mailbox yesterday, so I have not yet had time to read it. However, in skimming, I noticed that it does mention roll over accidents. I do not know how much detail is offered or what type of analysis was performed.
Click to expand...

Lots of good and interesting data and analysis in that article - but he does let you puzzle over the meaning of some of the results. (I think making the reader THINK about the data is a good idea, especially when some of it can imply different things). Doesn't really solve the Nose/tail debate, but gives you stuff to think about.

Paul
 
esjacoby77 said:
There is an article in this month's issue of kitplanes about RV accident rates. The magazine showed up in my mailbox yesterday.
Click to expand...

By "this month" you must mean July issue because I don't see it in the June issue............. Subscription creep is getting out of hand...........:confused:
 
jeff beckley said:
I was a little offended that you specifically made reference to amateur built as one that should no be flown IFR. Also I am proponent of building a plane for full IFR or strictly VFR. No such thing as light IFR. You are in it or you are not. Too many people build there planes with something like a Dynon and think they are safe for "light IFR". This give a sense of false security that might
make some take risks they normally would not.
Click to expand...


can we put an end to the misuse of terms?

VMC= visual meteorological conditions
VFR = visual flight rules
IFR = instrument flight rules
IMC = instrument meteorological conditions


I think all of the use of "IFR" in this thread is with the intent of describing IMC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top