On Topic

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

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.)

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe 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...


Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
flight to free caster.

Brian W

"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe 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...


Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
flight to free caster.

Brian W

Not the ones that I flew. On the 150 and 152 models with which I was
familiar, the scissor link engaged a cam on the oleo casing when the nose
strut was fully extended--which forced the nosewheel into its straight ahead
position. Since the nosewheel steering force was applied through a pair of
springs, the rudder operated normally with only a little more pressure; but,
due to the limited nosewheel steering force which was available, tight turns
on the ramp did require assistance from the brakes.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe 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...

Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
flight to free caster.

Brian W

Not the ones that I flew. On the 150 and 152 models with which I was
familiar, the scissor link engaged a cam on the oleo casing when the nose
strut was fully extended--which forced the nosewheel into its straight ahead
position. Since the nosewheel steering force was applied through a pair of
springs, the rudder operated normally with only a little more pressure; but,
due to the limited nosewheel steering force which was available, tight turns
on the ramp did require assistance from the brakes.

Peter



This is a way more accurate description of the mechanism by which C-150s
have nosewheels that point ahead in flight. I do agree! Does
"Free-castoring" constitute something more effective than this for
flight drag reduction? :-)

Brian W

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote in message
...
"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...

--
Not quite as much as I had personally supposed, but still a usefull amount.

All the same, I'm learning to love the tailwheels.

Why can't the tailwheel be faired? Maybe with something flexible, like
silicone rubber.

On May 13, 3:34*pm, "Jon Woellhaf" wrote:
Why can't the tailwheel be faired? Maybe with something flexible, like
silicone rubber.

Yes, that or just pay the $43.60.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/...sc&product=twf

---
Mark

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
Why can't the tailwheel be faired? Maybe with something flexible, like
silicone rubber.


Some vintage tailwheels WERE faired or retracted.

Brian W