On Topic

wrote:
...but I highly doubt you will ever find anyone that has
actually flown an aircraft that will agree that all flight training can
be done in a simulator like you seem to believe.


The FAA grants approval to some simulators used to lift CPL-IRs to their
first passenger-carrying duties as ATPLs for passenger jets - that's the
economic reality.

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote:
wrote:
...but I highly doubt you will ever find anyone that has
actually flown an aircraft that will agree that all flight training can
be done in a simulator like you seem to believe.


The FAA grants approval to some simulators used to lift CPL-IRs to their
first passenger-carrying duties as ATPLs for passenger jets - that's the
economic reality.

Brian W

Yeah, but what part of "all flight training" did you miss?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"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.

"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

"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

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

"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.

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

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