Tail Dragger vs. Tricycle

[foka4]

I learned to fly in taildraggers, and it's totally within the grasp of the average pilot if you're patient and careful. No super powers requred. I'm certainly no superman at the controls.

Once you've mastered the tailwheel crosswind landing, putting a trike on the ground is a trivial, bounce-free affair. From that standpoint, I value the learning experience of tackling the tailwheel thing first.

Over time, you'll learn that coordinated use of brakes and aerodynamic controls will let you do some neat things, and isn't anything to fear. I feel like I can mash the brakes on my C140 without risk of nosing over, but my idea of "mashing" is probably different than a tricycle-only pilot's.

m

 

[Agrinaut]

A lot of folks have mentioned the pros and cons of each type, but after nearly ten years flying mine, I think the most important difference is the landing. You must land my Luscombe straight with the direction of travel. Period. The C-172 and other tricycle-geared airplanes will take side load. Mine will not.

I think another difference that it is an airplane that does not forgive excessive airspeed on landing. You don't add speed for your mama, your brothers and your sisters, etc....

Mine taxis fine, very maneuverable. I have heel brakes, which I happen to like. I can see over the nose, mainly because I have custom seats. I have a stick. I don't have flaps. My airplane is not a bush plane or a great cross-country airplane, but it is a joy to fly, which is why I think it's the coolest.

Deb

Mighty fine looking airplane you have there.

 

[Henning]

I learned to fly in taildraggers, and it's totally within the grasp of the average pilot if you're patient and careful. No super powers requred. I'm certainly no superman at the controls.

Once you've mastered the tailwheel crosswind landing, putting a trike on the ground is a trivial, bounce-free affair. From that standpoint, I value the learning experience of tackling the tailwheel thing first.

Over time, you'll learn that coordinated use of brakes and aerodynamic controls will let you do some neat things, and isn't anything to fear. I feel like I can mash the brakes on my C140 without risk of nosing over, but my idea of "mashing" is probably different than a tricycle-only pilot's.

m

In high horsepower models I find T/O, especially left crosswind take off the most dicey thing. You can run out of rudder pretty damned easily.

 

[PittsDriver]

Reasons why taildraggers are the only choice:
1. All the cool aircraft are tailwheel.
2. You're entitled to a level of ramp swagger that tricycle drivers just can't justify.
3. All those still riding tricycles are still wondering if they've got the right stuff.

I could go on but really isn't reason #1 enough by itself?

 

[Dan Thomas]

Reasons why taildraggers are the only choice:
1. All the cool aircraft are tailwheel.
2. You're entitled to a level of ramp swagger that tricycle drivers just can't justify.
3. All those still riding tricycles are still wondering if they've got the right stuff.

I could go on but really isn't reason #1 enough by itself?

I like all those reasons. Wouldn't a P-51 look silly as a trike? The early 172s sure did, and the Tri-Pacer, and the trike versions of the Helio and Maule both look ridiculous.

Dan

 

[john smith]

Not me. I have over 700hrs with heel brakes and still hate them.

I have 500+ hours in Champs and Cubs. Heel brakes are a non-issue so long as they are kept in proper adjustment.

 

[B2Soar]

In high horsepower models I find T/O, especially left crosswind take off the most dicey thing. You can run out of rudder pretty damned easily.

That would be scary!

What aircraft are you refering to? Everything I have flown had great tail control with just a little burst of power. If full T/O power would not nail it where I wanted, that would be VERY uncomfortable for me!

Rick

 

[Henning]

That would be scary!

What aircraft are you refering to? Everything I have flown had great tail control with just a little burst of power. If full T/O power would not nail it where I wanted, that would be VERY uncomfortable for me!

Rick

The Bull Thrush was one that would get you on P factor alone, it had a 1435hp R-1820. It was a real ***** with 2/3rds load in the tank sloshing around. You start lined up 45* left and end up pointed backwards, "nailing it" would just exacerbate the problem.

 

[Trapper John]

The Bull Thrush was one that would get you on P factor alone, it had a 1435hp R-1820. It was a real ***** with 2/3rds load in the tank sloshing around. You start lined up 45* left and end up pointed backwards, "nailing it" would just exacerbate the problem.

Too much power can be a very bad thing, look at the P-51 that crashed at Camarillo a couple of years ago, and he wasn't the first one to come to grief that way...


Trapper John

 

[SkyHog]

Here's the ultimate skinny, Austin:

Taildraggers are cool, but people get too bent out of shape when you suggest that they are not the perfect airplane.

Trigear is easier, and IMHO, cooler looking.

Scorecard:
Forward visibility during taxi/takeoff: Trigear

Better on unimproved strips: Taildragger

Ease of landing: Trigear

Ease of parking: Taildragger

Safer ground operations (including cross wind taxiing): Trigear

Most likely to get a non-pilot to feel comfortable: Trigear

Easiest landing: Trigear

Strength of gear: Taildragger

So - to me, it appears that the Trigear wins, but only by a slight margin. I will be proven wrong in 3...2....1....

 

[Henning]

Too much power can be a very bad thing, look at the P-51 that crashed at Camarillo a couple of years ago, and he wasn't the first one to come to grief that way...


Trapper John

It really does take some throttle finesse when you get into high HPs, that's why they required LOAs for over 900hp. I grew up with really powerful cars, and you get similar issues with more power available than counter force to maintain controllability.

 

[jesse]

That would be scary!

What aircraft are you refering to? Everything I have flown had great tail control with just a little burst of power. If full T/O power would not nail it where I wanted, that would be VERY uncomfortable for me!

Rick

It isn't that full T/O power isn't enough--it's that it is TOO much--and the torque/p-factor is over-powering the rudder. You have to be careful with the throttle on super high performance prop airplanes.

Plenty of P-51 pilots killed by throwing full power on the go-around and torque rolling.

 

[Henning]

It isn't that full T/O power isn't enough--it's that it is TOO much--and the torque/p-factor is over-powering the rudder. You have to be careful with the throttle on super high performance prop airplanes.

Plenty of P-51 pilots killed by throwing full power on the go-around and torque rolling.

Yep. The nice thing about recips though is that you get nearly instant thrust when you advance the throttle, so you can "feel" when you have "enough" and quit pushing it forward. It's typically only a problem when the planes are light, as the big engines are there to haul the load off the ground. Thing is most Mustangs today aren't carrying a full load of Ammo, bombs/rockets and external fuel loads. Reality is a P-51 would perform very well in our current usage with 800hp

 

[gismo]

Yep. The nice thing about recips though is that you get nearly instant thrust when you advance the throttle, so you can "feel" when you have "enough" and quit pushing it forward. It's typically only a problem when the planes are light, as the big engines are there to haul the load off the ground. Thing is most Mustangs today aren't carrying a full load of Ammo, bombs/rockets and external fuel loads. Reality is a P-51 would perform very well in our current usage with 800hp

Other than the ability to fly slower due to the lower stall speed, I can't see why lighter weight would decrease the rudder's effectiveness.

 

[jesse]

Other than the ability to fly slower due to the lower stall speed, I can't see why lighter weight would decrease the rudder's effectiveness.

It wouldn't.

A heavier airplane would better resist the force of the rotating propeller (torque) therefore requiring less rudder to correct the left tendency. If the airplane weighs more the torque from the prop would have less of an effect. The prop at full power will produce X amount of opposite force. I think this is what Henning was getting at.

 

[Tom-D]

Yep. The nice thing about recips though is that you get nearly instant thrust when you advance the throttle, so you can "feel" when you have "enough" and quit pushing it forward. It's typically only a problem when the planes are light, as the big engines are there to haul the load off the ground. Thing is most Mustangs today aren't carrying a full load of Ammo, bombs/rockets and external fuel loads. Reality is a P-51 would perform very well in our current usage with 800hp

P-51 is a ***** cat, try a AD-1 Spad with 3650 horse power 3350 Wright in it, with no load.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Here's the ultimate skinny, Austin:

Taildraggers are cool, but people get too bent out of shape when you suggest that they are not the perfect airplane.

Trigear is easier, and IMHO, cooler looking.

Scorecard:
Forward visibility during taxi/takeoff: Trigear

Better on unimproved strips: Taildragger

Ease of landing: Trigear

Ease of parking: Taildragger

Safer ground operations (including cross wind taxiing): Trigear

Most likely to get a non-pilot to feel comfortable: Trigear

Easiest landing: Trigear

Strength of gear: Taildragger

So - to me, it appears that the Trigear wins, but only by a slight margin. I will be proven wrong in 3...2....1....

Ah Ha! A challange!!

Seriously - it all depends on why you are flying.

If the only objective is the destination - even tricycle gear might not be easy enough - there is a reason for the nick name "Fork tailed doctor killer".

If the objective is just to kick around, have fun, an old taildragger can't be beat.

Hard core acro? Location of the landing gear is last on your mind.

etc.

 

[PittsDriver]

Too much power can be a very bad thing, ...

Wash your mouth out with soap. Ain't no such thing as too much power. There is a rampant problem with not enough skill to handle it. But, too much power - doesn't exist.

 

[AdamZ]

Its not bad. You quickly learn to apply opposite differential brake as your coming out of the turn. Its just becomes an instinct with out real thought. You just do it. Ron Levy checked me out in mine and the first couple of minutes I was all over the place and then bingo. Like learning to hover in a copter, only this takes a few minutes not several hours.

I learned in Grumans and found it very odd transitioning to turning in Archers.

 

[gismo]

It wouldn't.

A heavier airplane would better resist the force of the rotating propeller (torque) therefore requiring less rudder to correct the left tendency.

I don't think that adding weight to an airplane would "better resist the force of the rotating propeller" either. Lowering the CG significantly might.

 

[jesse]

I don't think that adding weight to an airplane would "better resist the force of the rotating propeller" either. Lowering the CG significantly might.

Really? I don't see how it couldn't better resist it. My physics knowledge definitely is lacking compared to many others on this board though.

The rotating prop is bound to create an equal/opposite reaction which is one factor with the left tendency on takeoff. It seems to me that a lighter airframe will be more influenced by this force (torque).

I could be way off base with the above assumptions though.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Really? I don't see how it couldn't better resist it. My physics knowledge definitely is lacking compared to many others on this board though.

The rotating prop is bound to create an equal/opposite reaction which is one factor with the left tendency on takeoff. It seems to me that a lighter airframe will be more influenced by this force (torque).

I could be way off base with the above assumptions though.

There are FOUR forces that cause the airplane to turn left on takeoff.

1. Torque reaction. The fuselage rotates in the opposite direction to the prop, and a roll will cause a turn as well as the extra drag from the left main with the extra weight on it. In most lightplanes this is very small.

2. Gyroscopic force. As the tail is raised, the prop's gyroscopic effect is to turn left. A gyro will act at 90 degrees to the applied force, in the direction of rotation, so as the top of the prop is moved ahead the right side is where the reaction is felt. It's also felt as a heavier nose in a RH steep turn than what we feel in a LH turn.

3. Slipstream effect. The propeller blast, at lower forward speeds, is in a spiral off the propeller and twists around the fuselage, striking the left side of the fin and pushing it to the right, which is nose left.

4. The famous "P" factor, which is the higher angle of attack (and slightly higher forward speed) of the downgoing prop blade when the propeller's axis is tilted upward with respect to the line of flight, causing asymmetric thrust. The RH side of the prop pulls a little harder than the left side, and the airplane wants to turn left.


Dan

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Really? I don't see how it couldn't better resist it. My physics knowledge definitely is lacking compared to many others on this board though.

The rotating prop is bound to create an equal/opposite reaction which is one factor with the left tendency on takeoff. It seems to me that a lighter airframe will be more influenced by this force (torque).

I could be way off base with the above assumptions though.

I would think that with more weight (inerta) the airframe reaction to the same disturbance would be slower - giving the pilot more time to react. On the other hand, once a heavier aircraft starts to move, stopping it becomes more difficult as well?

 

[jesse]

There are FOUR forces that cause the airplane to turn left on takeoff.

1. Torque reaction. The fuselage rotates in the opposite direction to the prop, and a roll will cause a turn as well as the extra drag from the left main with the extra weight on it. In most lightplanes this is very small.

2. Gyroscopic force. As the tail is raised, the prop's gyroscopic effect is to turn left. A gyro will act at 90 degrees to the applied force, in the direction of rotation, so as the top of the prop is moved ahead the right side is where the reaction is felt. It's also felt as a heavier nose in a RH steep turn than what we feel in a LH turn.

3. Slipstream effect. The propeller blast, at lower forward speeds, is in a spiral off the propeller and twists around the fuselage, striking the left side of the fin and pushing it to the right, which is nose left.

4. The famous "P" factor, which is the higher angle of attack (and slightly higher forward speed) of the downgoing prop blade when the propeller's axis is tilted upward with respect to the line of flight, causing asymmetric thrust. The RH side of the prop pulls a little harder than the left side, and the airplane wants to turn left.


Dan

Oh..I know there are more forces. I'm just talking about the one where WEIGHT could matter.

 

[PittsDriver]

More weight? Too much power? More time to react? Man, I'm glad you guys aren't designing aircraft. We're not driving Cadillacs here. Think Formula 1 race cars and you're closer to the design trade offs for a fun to fly aircraft. Lightest possible weight, snap your neck roll responsiveness, ton's of power - if you've got all that are you still going to complain that you might have to actually use your feet on a flight control! So what if it won't take off and land itself! You're a pilot, right?!? You're sittin' there to make it do what you want it to. The man asked which - tailwheel or tricycle? I'll ask it a different way - Oldsmobile or Ferrari? Sure you can drive around a flying Oldsmobile or you can go get some skills and pilot an airborne Ferrari. The man asked and that's the answer.

 

[jesse]

More weight? Too much power? More time to react? Man, I'm glad you guys aren't designing aircraft. We're not driving Cadillacs here. Think Formula 1 race cars and you're closer to the design trade offs for a fun to fly aircraft. Lightest possible weight, snap your neck roll responsiveness, ton's of power - if you've got all that are you still going to complain that you might have to actually use your feet on a flight control! So what if it won't take off and land itself! You're a pilot, right?!? You're sittin' there to make it do what you want it to. The man asked which - tailwheel or tricycle? I'll ask it a different way - Oldsmobile or Ferrari? Sure you can drive around a flying Oldsmobile or you can go get some skills and pilot an airborne Ferrari. The man asked and that's the answer.

Sigh...

 

[gismo]

Really? I don't see how it couldn't better resist it. My physics knowledge definitely is lacking compared to many others on this board though.

The rotating prop is bound to create an equal/opposite reaction which is one factor with the left tendency on takeoff. It seems to me that a lighter airframe will be more influenced by this force (torque).

I could be way off base with the above assumptions though.

Lighter weight, or more accurately more weight out on the wings (creating a higher polar moment about the longitudinal axis) would affect the dynamic reaction of the airplane to prop torque but would have no effect on the static condition. IOW if you had more torque than the control surfaces could oppose in both cases, a plane with more weight at the wingtips would roll over more slowly at first but it would roll just as far.

 

[jnmeade]

Where's my GB? I know I left it around here somewhere! What do you mean they're all wrecked?

 

[Henning]

Other than the ability to fly slower due to the lower stall speed, I can't see why lighter weight would decrease the rudder's effectiveness.

Torque, P-factor and inertia. Greater mass=greater inertia=greater resistance to the rolling moment=increased time for the pilot to realize his error and reduce the throttle.

 

[N1347B]

Mighty fine looking airplane you have there.

Thank you !

Deb

 

[gismo]

Torque, P-factor and inertia. Greater mass=greater inertia=greater resistance to the rolling moment=increased time for the pilot to realize his error and reduce the throttle.

OK, but you're really talking about polar moment, not weight.

 

[PittsDriver]

Torque, P-factor and inertia. Greater mass=greater inertia=greater resistance to the rolling moment=increased time for the pilot to realize his error and reduce the throttle.

Greater mass = dog of a performer. I know guys on a 1200 calorie a day diet so their vertical lines are longer. You guys don't happen to work in Detroit do you?

 

[jesse]

Greater mass = dog of a performer. I know guys on a 1200 calorie a day diet so their vertical lines are longer. You guys don't happen to work in Detroit do you?

Have you read this *at all*? Greater mass equals more spray which means you make more money. We're not talking about aerobatics. We're not suggesting that you should make your Pitts 10,000 lbs because it'll be a better airplane...Seriously...sigh.

We're simply discussing why a high horse power spray plane behaves differently at takeoff when heavily loaded with chemical. Your constant interjection suggesting that we're bad pilots because we're discussing the above behavior is simply ridiculous.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Greater mass = dog of a performer. I know guys on a 1200 calorie a day diet so their vertical lines are longer. You guys don't happen to work in Detroit do you?

As I recall, I said heavier was slower. I don't recall saying heavier is better.

And, yes, I do work in Detroit.

I put a lot of time and effort into improving fuel economy (I do controls, not hardware, so other people work on weight). One project I am wrapping up is for some active aero devices so I even got to spend time in wind tunnels.

 

[PittsDriver]

Your constant interjection suggesting that we're bad pilots because we're discussing the above behavior is simply ridiculous.

The funny thing is, even in this post of yours, the title of this thread is plainly displayed. The point of the thread was contrasting tricycles with conventional gear aircraft. The fact that you guys got off topic is why I was posting. Too many pilots get it their mind that a "good" airplane is one that presents them with no behaviors outside their comfort zone. A good airplane is one that will always do exactly what you tell it to do, when you tell it to do it, and do it the same way every time. The fact that you have to actually be skillful enough to tell it the right thing, and that the skill level required might exceed any given pilots ability isn't a indication of something that needs fixing on the plane. It just means more and better instruction required to master it.

Someone that might be interested in tailwheel aircraft are likely interested it using it outside the normal flight profile of your standard weekend spam can pilot. Light weight, high performance, responsiveness - all good characteristics even when they result in an airplane that requires greater skill to operate. It was you that referenced how P-51 pilots kill themselves using too much power on the go-around. I may have misinterpreted your point but I think you were pointing that out as a problem. When I read that I think "hot damn that must be a kick" to have that much power on tap. It's not right or wrong either way, just an opinion. It's frustrating though to see good stick pilots get dissuaded from certain aircraft because they've been told by some spam can CFI that those aircraft are twitchy or hard to control.

So, I'll say it again - the man asked a question: Which is better and why? Do you have anything to add to that discussion?

 

[tonycondon]

us? go off topic? never!

 

[stingray]

Okkay, how do you get them to go where you point them? In my admittedly quite limited experience, pushing on the rudder pedal now means it'll start turning that way in several seconds...

Anticipation, Biggest fault is holding it too long. Once it starts moving a little, back off. That is with my limited experience. 10 hrs and growing.

Dan

 

[gismo]

Anticipation, Biggest fault is holding it too long. Once it starts moving a little, back off. That is with my limited experience. 10 hrs and growing.

Dan

Most of the time, the best approach is to apply a rudder correction and then not only remove it but actually push the other way briefly as soon as the motion you're trying to arrest has decreased in velocity. For example, say you notice that the plane has begun to swerve (yaw) to the right. Apply left rudder until the rate of yaw decreases. If you wait until the yaw stops or much worse wait until the undesired yaw goes back to zero (tracking straight) your left rudder will push the tail much further to the right than it went on the first swing and the plane will yaw much quicker. If instead you remove the left rudder as soon as the rate of yaw slows down it will likely come back to neutral (zero yaw) gently all by itself. If the return to zero yaw occurs with a rapid yaw rate you need to arrest the counter swerve with a blip of right rudder applied about the time half the yaw is gone.

Of course the biggest problem that most tricycle pilots seem to have initially is just recognizing that the plane isn't pointed where it's going. In the air, that's just uncoordinated but on the ground it causes a much delayed reaction requiring a big correction that will probably make things worse.