Conventional v tricycle gear

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?
The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?
The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.



Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
:

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?

a bit of chaff sorting. you pass :-)

The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.



Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

the quality of the posts usually inversely proportional to the length
before the sig line. yours are often the shortest.

(it never occurred to me that you were not a white guy)
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
:

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and
their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in
that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record
when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel
significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more
viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear
mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers
and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few
hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?

a bit of chaff sorting. you pass :-)

The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.



Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

the quality of the posts usually inversely proportional to the length
before the sig line. yours are often the shortest.

That's just laziness..

(it never occurred to me that you were not a white guy)


Me neither. I'd better check.

Bertie

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages?

Primarily, that making wheelies in a taildragger is flying (or anyhow
landing) as we always imagined it would be before we learned to fly.

Short takeoffs and landings are much shorter and easier in a
taildragger, especially if the field leaves something to be desired in
the way of smoothness.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com