Conventional vs. Tricycle

judypilot said:
I don't get this, either. Still, I can't imagine why anyone would want a low-wing airplane. (Duckin' and runnin')
Click to expand...
A very practical reason is flying extended time over water. Unless your high wing has a boat hull, or is on pontoons, ditching a low wing aircraft is safer. They are more likely to remain upright. They tend to float longer giving the occupants a greater chance to safely egress. (One of PBAs T-50s ditched in the 50s, the crew and passengers exited and the plane remained afloat until it was eventually beached by the tide days later.)

It is safer to fly low-wing Ag aircraft that fly in ground effect, as you have a bigger safety margin. Also having half the structure of the aircraft below you should you make an unplanned landing absorbs a lot of energy. A fair number of Ag pilots have been crushed by collapsing wing structures.

That said, if someone would like to give me a Cessna 170A, or a mid-wing Aerostar, my address is...
 
MauleSkinner said:
You mean like Staggerwings, Swifts, Bellancas, P-51s, Electras, Howard 500s,…. ;)
steingar said:
Most tailwheel aircraft were built as trainers and have the gear hanging out the bottom. I prefer airplanes that retract the gear and go fast. Not too many of them were made as taildraggers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
me-262 taildragger.jpg
supermarine attacker.JPG
yakovlev-yak15-feather.jpg
...and no, none of them are flying. But that Supermarine is kind of attractive....

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
View attachment 102849
View attachment 102850
View attachment 102851
...and no, none of them are flying.....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Someone (Galland perhaps) remarked that the last thing you did before spooling up the taildragging Heinkel and Messerschmidt jets was open up the cowlings so the fuel that leaked through the fuel controller as it sat on the ramp could drain out. Apparently a few were lost to fires on startup. (The Jumo engines apparently had lives measured in the dozens of hours-- musta been fun being the guinea pig for new tech.)
 
wanttaja said:
...and no, none of them are flying. But that Supermarine is kind of attractive....
Click to expand...
Sea-Dart-Water-Test1.jpg


Nauga,
and some hot soup
 
Warren Dunes said:
Someone (Galland perhaps) remarked that the last thing you did before spooling up the taildragging Heinkel and Messerschmidt jets was open up the cowlings so the fuel that leaked through the fuel controller as it sat on the ramp could drain out. Apparently a few were lost to fires on startup. (The Jumo engines apparently had lives measured in the dozens of hours-- musta been fun being the guinea pig for new tech.)
Click to expand...
IIRC, too, the elevator was blanked during the takeoff run, and couldn't lift its tail. Pilot had to stab the brakes at the right time. Think this was from Galland's "The First and the Last," probably the same place you read the fuel-leak story.

Ironically, the Yak-15 (third airplane) was initially designed to use captured Jumo 004 engines from the ME-262.

The replica ME-262s built at Everett, Washington, used CJ610 engines *inside* replica shells of Jumo 004s....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I knew when I said that you guys would dig up a bunch of black and white photos of antiques. I can only think of a handful of retractable GA taildraggers, and there aren't many around. The vast vast, vast majority of retractable gear airplanes feature a nosewheel. The only reason the tailwheel aircraft haven't got one is they didn't have the technology when they were built. I hope I don't have to post up photos of airliners, fighters, bombers and all kinds of other retractable nosegear airplanes just to shut you guys the hell up.
 
steingar said:
I prefer airplanes that retract the gear and go fast.
Click to expand...

steingar said:
I hope I don't have to post up photos of airliners, fighters, bombers and all kinds of other retractable nosegear airplanes just to shut you guys the hell up.
Click to expand...
Just post pics of the airliners, fighters, and bombers that have a speed range similar to the one you fly. ;)

Nauga,
and an elitist in every corner
 
steingar said:
Most tailwheel aircraft were built as trainers and have the gear hanging out the bottom. I prefer airplanes that retract the gear and go fast. Not too many of them were made as taildraggers.
Click to expand...
The Avro Tudor was a contemporary of the Douglas DC-4 and looked a lot like a conventional gear DC-4 or DC-6.
The Vickers Viking preceded the Convair 240 by a couple of years but looked a lot like one with the third wheel in the back.
 
Pilawt said:
The Champion Model 7JC "Tri-Con", which inspired one intense, visceral reaction throughout aviation: "Why??!!"

View attachment 102858

Maybe because it reflected the styling of such classics as the Northrop YC-125 Raider ...



... or the Fairchild Husky.

View attachment 102859
Click to expand...

That last one looks like it needs a litter box behind the tailwheel.
 
judypilot said:
I don't get this, either. Still, I can't imagine why anyone would want a low-wing airplane. (Duckin' and runnin')
Click to expand...
..funny, I've had the exact same thought but for high wings! Perhaps there's more animosity in the high/low wing crowd than the tricycle/conventional! But I'll refrain from a full fledged Tantalum rant this time (all of you are welcome)..

I will say though this view:
upload_2021-12-16_17-37-37.png


Is a million times better than this. I want to see the blue sky and a clear view of the ground and one 'clean' wing, not struts, wheels, pitot tubes, fuel vents, mirrors, etc. You can always bank a low wing to see the ground better. If you bank a high wing you still get strut and tires but lose the sky too. "See anyone on final Jim?" "F if I know" .. followed by the eventual base to final turn of "where the hell is the runway? I guess I'll just keep turning until it comes into view" doing that neck stretch forward and down around the wing look (sorry for the small rant)
upload_2021-12-16_17-38-25.png


Granted, the Cessna 190/195 gets a pass - that is the most beautiful plane ever built, it can do no wrong.
 
Well since this is a tricycle gear vs tailwheel thread, and this is poa, we must discuss high vs. low wing.

As a high wing owner, I must admit, I'd rather have a low wing all day long in the AIR. Easier to see traffic, and like @Tantalum points out, a nicer view from the cockpit.

However on the GROUND I'd rather have a high wing. No need to worry about clearing snow banks, taxiway lights, provides nice shade and rain cover. In the backcountry its nice to clear brush and other low-lying debris, as well as be able to see exactly what you're taxiing over. Easier entry/exit too

If only someone made a convertible.
 
SkyChaser said:
The thread over in Aviation Mishaps that's devolved into an argument about conventional vs. trike has got me wondering. Why is there such animosity between people who prefer taildraggers and those who prefer nosewheel airplanes? Does anyone know?

I've flown (but not landed!) a taildragger before, and it was very different from the Archer, but I was in the backseat and had never flown with a stick. It was freaky realizing how much I depended on the sight picture to determine the proper attitude and how lost I was at first because I didn't know what that sight picture should be, and I couldn't see the instruments or the nose. I had to use the rudder in flight, yes, but I always use at least a little bit, to keep that ball completely centered. Do people actually fly nosewheel airplanes without really using the rudder?
Click to expand...

They run off the runway if they don’t.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
As a high wing owner, I must admit, I'd rather have a low wing all day long in the AIR. Easier to see traffic, and like @Tantalum points out, a nicer view from the cockpit.

However on the GROUND I'd rather have a high wing. No need to worry about clearing snow banks, taxiway lights, provides nice shade and rain cover. In the backcountry its nice to clear brush and other low-lying debris, as well as be able to see exactly what you're taxiing over. Easier entry/exit too

If only someone made a convertible.
Click to expand...
High wings are welcome in hot climates!

In flight, low wings painted bright white increase glare (which is why I specified a softer light tan base color for my new airplane). On the ground it's easier to see low-wing wingtips when taxiing in tight spaces.

Tradeoffs, tradeoffs!
 
Mtns2Skies said:
However on the GROUND I'd rather have a high wing. No need to worry about clearing snow banks, taxiway lights, provides nice shade and rain cover. In the backcountry its nice to clear brush and other low-lying debris, as well as be able to see exactly what you're taxiing over. Easier entry/exit too
Click to expand...
The high wing is also easier to get out of in a hurry if it goes over on its back. Low-wing airplanes, when inverted, often end up with jammed doors or canopies, making egress difficult. If there's fuel running out, I want out, right now. The Cessna ttX/400/Corvalis has an emergency release behind a small access door in the wing root for that, for outside help, but if you're at some deserted spot it's no help at all.
 
nauga said:
Just post pics of the airliners, fighters, and bombers that have a speed range similar to the one you fly. ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah. Landing a taildragger---even a big taildragger---at 135 knots would be interesting indeed.
 
FormerHangie said:
This guy, for example.
Click to expand...
So why does that happen? Didn't Piper and Cessna tell us that tricycle gear wants to go straight? Do some pilots take that to mean that it doesn't need any input from the pilot? Pretty bad when you're the only person in the airplane and you're a passenger.

Definitely some defective instruction there.
 
Warren Dunes said:
The "flip" side to this is with a lower center of gravity a low wing is less likely to "go over on its back."
Click to expand...
Yup. Less likely, but not unknown by any means. You get a low-wing trike bumping into something, or running into soft ground, and it could easily happen. This one hit a berm.

KathrynsReport.jpg


According to the pilot, after landing on runway 13 (8,000 ft long, asphalt), about halfway through the rollout at a speed of 40-50 kts the airplane suddenly veered to the right. She attempted to correct the turn with left pedal and brake but was unsuccessful. She confirmed with the pilot rated passenger that the power was at idle. The airplane departed the runway into the grass, struck a berm, flipped over, and came to rest inverted. The pilot further stated that she had not yet applied the brakes nor retracted the flaps from their 10° position, before the airplane veered to the right.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/09/beech-k35-bonanza-n5300e-incident.html


More. Note the jammed canopy. They must have gotten out somehow.

upload_2021-12-16_18-55-17.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-12-16_18-56-30.jpeg
    upload_2021-12-16_18-56-30.jpeg
    196.2 KB · Views: 10
I mentioned in another thread but it can fit here too ... the fact that with my tail wheel I don't worry about my prop hitting the tow bar I forgot to put away ... :D
 
I’m going to solve this for all of you. Biplanes are the sexiest configuration for a piston single-engine airplane. I don’t think there’s any room for debate in that statement at all. So, having established beyond dispute where to put the wings, we can begin to talk about where to put the wheels.

Now, I won’t tell you that there was never a tricycle biplane. They existed. Don’t look for pictures, though, because they were all hideous to look at. And that, friends, is why taildraggers are superior to tricycles.

That’s without even bringing up that real pilots fly taildraggers, that the classical beauty airplanes were all taildraggers, and that chicks dig taildraggers. Or that they are faster, with less drag and more ground clearance for a big propeller. All of those things are true, but they are just fortunate side effects of the fact that, if you want to look good in a biplane (and, again, that is the only way you’re ever going to look good), you’re going to have to lose the training wheel.
 
nauga said:
Every different airplane you fly should make you a better pilot if you take the time to learn it. Some people are offended by that, others take pride in offending those who are offended by it. I find both sides unpleasant, whether it's tailwheel vs. trike, low wing vs. high, Cirrus vs. everybody else, or whatever manufactured conflict you'd care to list.

Nauga,
offsides
Click to expand...

well put. I firmly believe the TW made me a better pilot. But I also believe the guy that tells me that a glider would further refine my skills with no offense, as would my IR and commercial ticket. Ive been told A pitts or stearman would further refine my TW skills. I take no offense at the observation.
 
One day this whole discussion will probably be academic, as commercial flights will be autonomous, and kids will wonder why anyone would want to manually fly. Sully probably set that back 20 years, and the success of the F-16 probably moved it forward a bit. The concept of a computer flying the aircraft upset a lot of people at the time.

I don't get why tailwheel pilots like to pick on non-tailwheel, either, and I also don't get why non-tailwheel are offended by it or try to argue about it. To me it's similar to riding a motorcycle or being a pilot making a person a better driver. I believe it does, you learn to look at things differently and become more perceptive of risk.
 
iamtheari said:
I’m going to solve this for all of you. Biplanes are the sexiest configuration for a piston single-engine airplane. I don’t think there’s any room for debate in that statement at all. So, having established beyond dispute where to put the wings, we can begin to talk about where to put the wheels.

Now, I won’t tell you that there was never a tricycle biplane. They existed. Don’t look for pictures, though, because they were all hideous to look at. And that, friends, is why taildraggers are superior to tricycles.

That’s without even bringing up that real pilots fly taildraggers, that the classical beauty airplanes were all taildraggers, and that chicks dig taildraggers. Or that they are faster, with less drag and more ground clearance for a big propeller. All of those things are true, but they are just fortunate side effects of the fact that, if you want to look good in a biplane (and, again, that is the only way you’re ever going to look good), you’re going to have to lose the training wheel.
Click to expand...

this is the most correct answer!

*must look for a biplane to make me look good now
 
Warren Dunes said:
A very practical reason is flying extended time over water. Unless your high wing has a boat hull, or is on pontoons, ditching a low wing aircraft is safer. They are more likely to remain upright. They tend to float longer giving the occupants a greater chance to safely egress. (One of PBAs T-50s ditched in the 50s, the crew and passengers exited and the plane remained afloat until it was eventually beached by the tide days later.)

It is safer to fly low-wing Ag aircraft that fly in ground effect, as you have a bigger safety margin. Also having half the structure of the aircraft below you should you make an unplanned landing absorbs a lot of energy. A fair number of Ag pilots have been crushed by collapsing wing structures.

That said, if someone would like to give me a Cessna 170A, or a mid-wing Aerostar, my address is...
Click to expand...

Well. I am a geologist. I like having a full view of the ground. And I spend very little time over water. So there.:p
 
steingar said:
I can only think of a handful of retractable GA taildraggers, and there aren't many around.
Click to expand...

Swifts are around 400 still flying according to the Swift Museum Foundation, and I'd bet of the list mentioned earlier they're the most plentiful from it by far.
 
judypilot said:
Still, I can't imagine why anyone would want a low-wing airplane. (Duckin' and runnin')
Click to expand...


After the third time I creased my forehead on a high-wing’s flaps, I concluded that only those desiring severe brain damage would buy such a beast.

Not to mention the fun of balancing on a ladder in a high wind while hauling a fuel hose....
 
Half Fast said:
After the third time I creased my forehead on a high-wing’s flaps, I concluded that only those desiring severe brain damage would buy such a beast.

Not to mention the fun of balancing on a ladder in a high wind while hauling a fuel hose....
Click to expand...

I managed to avoid the flaps when I flew a Skyhawk, but the fueling thing... My very first lesson, I learned a very important thing. If it's a Sunday, and you wear a skirt or dress to church, and you have to drive from church to the airport, put a pair of jeans in the car before leaving home and change before you fuel/fly. Thankfully it was winter, so I was wearing leggings under the skirt. Otherwise, it would have been a little ...interesting. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top