On Topic

On May 10, 3:06*pm, "birdog" wrote:
Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here?

Sorry birdog. I'm putting a lock on my computer so
these people that come over to my house can't get
online and come to my groups.

From now on it will just be me using this
computer.

---
Mark

"birdog" wrote:
Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except
for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to
tarmac.

Perhaps one other possible redeeming value might be in emergency landings
on unknown surfaces. I've read accident reports where there were fatalities
when the nose wheel of a plane dug in and the plane flipped.

I'm also curious to know if anyone can give first-hand information on
whether landing on skis or floats is more like landing on conventional gear
or tricycle gear? For several reasons I've assumed that it is more like
landing on tricycle gear, but maybe that is incorrect.

Have no experience, but kind of curious too.

I was under the impression that things that come into play for
conventional gear is gyroscopic motion on the propeller when the tail
comes up or drops on take off and landing, as well as the fact that
since the cg is behind the main gear there is a tenancy for the
airplane to want to ground loop if you don't keep that cg behind them
fairly well with control inputs.

I would think that both floats and skis would not have that same
issue, both due to not having as much pitch up and down on take off
and landings, and due to their cg being over the floats or skis.

But then again I have no idea what I am talking about. Just guessing
and would like someone who actually knows what they are talking about
to chime in heh.

Mike

On May 10, 3:56*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"birdog" wrote:
Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except
for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to
tarmac.

Perhaps one other possible redeeming value might be in emergency landings
on unknown surfaces. I've read accident reports where there were fatalities
when the nose wheel of a plane dug in and the plane flipped.

I'm also curious to know if anyone can give first-hand information on
whether landing on skis or floats is more like landing on conventional gear
or tricycle gear? For several reasons I've assumed that it is more like
landing on tricycle gear, but maybe that is incorrect.

"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?

Well, I found it pretty easy to start out in a taildragger - it just seems
to be a big problem from those transitioning from a nosewheel. I suspect
that it's the transition pilots that drive the insurance claims up which
drives the insurance companies to discourage using them for training.

Self fulfilling prophecy, eh?

Personally, I found the flexibility of a taildragger convenient even when
98% of the time I landed on pavement. You can't do wheel landings with
tricycle gear.
--
Geoff (making a trip to look at a taildragger tomorrow) Thorpe
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.

"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? :-)

"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