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.)

"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
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

Only in so much as the mechanism is smaller and much easier to fully enclose
in a fairing that allows both vertical and yawing movement of the nosewheel.
There was an STC'd speed modification offered for the Cessna 182, around 25
years ago, which included a telescoping fairing for the front oleo and
steering mechanism. As far as I can recall, the modicication was extremely
successfull in reducing drag; but it was expensive. In addition, there were
possible safety concerns--in that it placed considerable aerodynamic side
area farther forward (which would have increased the risk of an
unrecoverable spin) and also may have made a preflight inspection of the
steering mechanism much more dificult.

Peter

"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

On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:06:38 -0400, birdog wrote:

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?


The topic certainly isn't outdated, expecially for the
Vans RV enthusiasts. My first few flights were in a
J-3 tail dragger, and now I'd like to go back to the tail wheel
in an RV-6, or even a MySky MS-1 painted in nostaglic
retro to resemble a spitfire. Something super cool so I will look good
and get me some pussy in.

Ever.

sigh

Mark The Geostation