On Topic

"birdog" wrote in message
...
Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
on topic comments.

Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options.
The Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old
Champ. The principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels
are down solid, you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail
dragger, relax and it will swap ends, with devistating results.

In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
pilots trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up
with a dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took
about 3-6 hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear
normally took about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for
the beginning pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master
before soloing was the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.

Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
be worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

Yes, it is probably well worth the effort.

With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer tri-gear
designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has certainly
reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel; but it has done so at the
cost of controllability in the event of a partial brake failure and also
created some brake wear and heating problems taxiing in crosswinds.

Against that back drop, even though I expect to have a lot of trouble
learning to love the high nose position, a steerable tail wheel has a very
strong argument. I would expect the frequency of ground loops due to pilot
error in taildraggers to be no greater than the frequency due to braking
problems in tri-gears; and the improvement in propeller clearance, when
strarting from rest on the occasional loose surfaces, should offest the
annoyance s-turns due to reduced visibility. All in all, the comparison
could be a wash; but is certainly worthy of more discussion than it has
received.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do even
more...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

About 1 percent. At most 1.5%. The "A" models have the nosewheel, so here
are the performance figures Van's claims (I've read others say that he is
pretty honest about the performance numbers he lists):

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9per.htm

I think the RV-9 compared with the RV-9A at 118 HP, 55% power, and gross
weight shows the largest percent difference at about 1.4% faster for
conventional gear. Oddly, all the aircraft show about 2 mph difference,
regardless of power setting.

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

On May 12, 10:22*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:





"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
. ..
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. *That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

About 1 percent. At most 1.5%. The "A" models have the nosewheel, so here
are the performance figures Van's claims (I've read others say that he is
pretty honest about the performance numbers he lists):

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/r...ic/rv-9per.htm

I think the RV-9 compared with the RV-9A at 118 HP, 55% power, and gross
weight shows the largest percent difference at about 1.4% faster for
conventional gear. Oddly, all the aircraft show about 2 mph difference,
regardless of power setting.

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

Well, at least there's always several RV-6s on the market at all
times, some very reasonable. Here's one from an estate sale.
They're only asking 45. You could offer 39 and take it from there.

http://barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=345031

---
Mark

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
...
No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

LOL....

Thanks. I needed that.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Well, it's more than a year too late for me to avoid cheating in that way.
However, the advertised difference is around 2 knots; which is about 1/2 or
what I would have guessed before I looked.

But, that reduced difference in cruise performand was gained at the expense
of nowe wheel steering. So what we are really comparing on the RV-6, 7, 8,
and 9 models is a fully faired and free castering nosewheel versus an
unfaired and fully steerable tailwheel. So the ground handling advantage
does not automatically go to the nosewheel version.

On a more apples for apples comparison, when the lowly and "draggy" Cessna
150 and 152 are converted from a steerable oleo strut type nosewheel to a
steerable tailwheel, they are reputed to gain at least 8 knots.

Those are the reasons that I find myself willing to advocate for the
tailwheel.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
... when the lowly and "draggy" Cessna
150 and 152 are converted from a steerable oleo strut type nosewheel to a
steerable tailwheel, they are reputed to gain at least 8 knots.
.....
Peter

Hmmm...is this a comparison of a straight tail, no rear window, tail
wheel C150 and a nose wheel C-150, or are there are a few other little
details on a late model conversion, like wind LE cuffs, turbulators
etc., etc.
8 kts difference sound a little high to me, but I am willing to be
persuaded! :-)

Brian W

"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:
... when the lowly and "draggy" Cessna 150 and 152 are converted from a
steerable oleo strut type nosewheel to a steerable tailwheel, they are
reputed to gain at least 8 knots.
....
Peter

Hmmm...is this a comparison of a straight tail, no rear window, tail wheel
C150 and a nose wheel C-150, or are there are a few other little details
on a late model conversion, like wind LE cuffs, turbulators etc., etc.
8 kts difference sound a little high to me, but I am willing to be
persuaded! :-)

Brian W

No, it relates to my best recollection (that is possibly less than complete)
of the before and after performance for a Teas Taildragger conversion--which
removed the complete nosewheel assembly, added a steerable tailwheel, and
relocated the original main gear assembly to position forward of the wing
strut attachments.

That was reputed to drastically improve the cruise performance and provide
an accessible means for tailwheel training--during a time when tailwheel
trainers were in reportedly short supply. To the best of my recollection,
there was some critisism of the conversion in the case of the C152 and of
the L amd M models of the C150 because of the softer and slightly lower and
wider main gear--which alledgedly made it possible to compress the main gear
enough to strike the propeller during a hard landing.

Peter