On Topic

"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

Peter Dohm wrote:

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.

Nosewheel RV-6A has a higher rate of pilot loss of control than the
taildragger RV-6.

Ron Wanttaja

"Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.

I can believe that - and for anything with tires large enough for bush
flying I can see nosewheel reducing the performance much more than the RV
series, which do have more svelt nose gear and struts.

Also, I know that some other experimentals (like Kitfox) can be built in
either nosewheel or conventional gear, but I haven't searched for any
performance comparisons between two such planes that differ only in gear.
Besides, builders tend to make other changes in their homebuilts that
muddle direct comparisions.

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

So far I've only flown and landed an aircraft with one tire (glider) but
when loaded the CG moves forward of the tire, but with no one on board the
SGS 2-33 settles back on its tail, indicating the CG moves aft of the tire.

(Okay okay - technically the 2-33 has 4 wheels! Two small rollers near the
wingtips and a small one on the tail, plus the main tire. And there is a
skid forward of the main tire.)