Conventional vs. Tricycle

SkyChaser

SkyChaser

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
2,041
Display Name
Display name:
SkyChaser
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?
 
SkyChaser said:
Why is there such animosity between people who prefer taildraggers and those who prefer nosewheel airplanes? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
Because nosedragger pilots don’t understand and acknowledge the clear superiority of taildragger pilots. ;)

notice the winky face…this post is facetious. The previous one is serious.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Because of people like me who say flying tailwheel will make you a better pilot! People want to take that as an insult. It's not me saying I'm a better pilot than you, just saying adding this skillset will help you.

My friend owns and flies a Mooney and a Bonanza. He took lessons in a Champ last year and told me he thought I was full of it until he actually flew tailwheel. He now says it made him a better pilot and he added a Cessna 170 to his fleet!
 
Very simple. Human nature always tries to find a way to make someone feel superior, or validate the choice someone has made. e.g. the Bonanza is the best, Cirrus sucks....

The reality, when on the ground, the rudder matters for tail wheel, and in general matters less or not at all for tricycle gear planes.
Otherwise, 99% of the perspective that is makes better pilots one direction or another is based on the same thing. Oh, I flew a six pack for 30 years, so obviously it makes people a better pilot...

Tim (the cynic)
 
Warren Dunes said:
Heck, they made one of my nosedraggers without "footrests."
Click to expand...

It was made to be controlled that way, though. Since that's the case, I'm going to guess that when a plane is made with "footrests", the pilot is meant to use them...
 
SkyChaser said:
Why is there such animosity between people who prefer taildraggers and those who prefer nosewheel airplanes?
Click to expand...
I don't believe that there is. It just takes a couple trolls to make it look like there is.
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...
Them's fightin' words!
 
If your plane doesn’t have water rudders, you are not a real pilot.

That will be my mantra once I buy a float plane.

And I’m sure my buddy @James331 would agree. Right James…. James… hello. Damn. I forgot how to tag someone.
 
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...

Because they are so much cooler. High wings are good for utilitarian purposes, low wings fly.
 
kgruber said:
Simple!
Tailwheel=Good
Nosewheel=Bad
Click to expand...

I heard Mike Goulian talking one time about the airplanes he's flown, he talked about jets, tail draggers and airplanes with the training wheel on the front.
 
In 2007 I decided to buy a Sport Cub. But in almost 50 years of flying I’d never soloed a taildragger and I had doubts I could do it.

But I remembered that not that long ago all pilots were tailwheel pilots. People started out, soloed and got their tickets without giving the tailwheel a second thought. The only tri-gear light singles were Bonanzas, Navions and Ercoupes, and they were rarely used as trainers. And some of the tailwheel pilots I knew were hardly supermen. So maybe I had a chance.

I got the tailwheel endorsement, bought the Sport Cub and flew it for several years without bending anything, and had a blast with it. I only scared myself once.

Eventually life and mission changed, and I went back to tri-gear airplanes. The tailwheel experience was valuable and confidence-building, but I also appreciate the forgiving nature of the tri gear.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Tailwheel makes you a better pilot.
Click to expand...
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
 
Sac Arrow said:
Shouldn't the title be conventional vs tailweel?
Click to expand...

No, at least not according to the FAA's handbooks. That's the first place I really learned about gear configuration on airplanes, and there it was listed as conventional and tricycle. :)
 
Something about tailwheel planes just looks right.. nose held up high, pointing towards the sky. Very few tricycle gear planes look 'right' on the ground. I have only a little tailwheel time in a Champ, and I generally prefer modern accoutrements in a plane and going fast, but appreciate the classic, steampunk, romance of what tailwheels bring

I presume some of it's comparable to the manual vs automatic crowd..


PS - the lottery list of Tantalum's planes include a Beech 18 on there...
 
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.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Because of people like me who say flying tailwheel will make you a better pilot! People want to take that as an insult. It's not me saying I'm a better pilot than you, just saying adding this skillset will help you.

My friend owns and flies a Mooney and a Bonanza. He took lessons in a Champ last year and told me he thought I was full of it until he actually flew tailwheel. He now says it made him a better pilot and he added a Cessna 170 to his fleet!
Click to expand...
That.
 
nauga said:
Some people are offended by that, others take pride in offending those who are offended by it.
Click to expand...
That may be the most profound statement I've read on POA today.
 
I am always amazed that Dick Bong and Tommy McGuire were able to become the top two US aces during WW2 flying with training wheels.

I am also amazed that we were able to drop two atomic bombs on Japan with inferior trainer aircraft.

And let’s not forget the SR-71, it had nose gear so the USAF could use inexperienced rookie pilots to fly it.

I am sure those are all easy planes to fly because of the nose gear.

And yes, those are absurdly useless points but no more so than many of the others advocating on either side of where the third wheel is located.

Personally, I have enjoyed flying the few tailwheel planes that I have flown and am happy that I have the endorsement as it opens up more planes to me. And earning the endorsement definitely made me a better tailwheel pilot, but I do not believe it made me a better nose wheel pilot, just like becoming a seaplane pilot did not make me a better land plane pilot.

The only added rating that I have that perhaps made me a better overall pilot was my glider rating. But that is my personal opinion based on my personal experience. It is not an absolute fact and might not apply to the experiences of others and I do not and will not tell others or even suggest that if they have never flown a glider that they are a lesser pilot. Such presumptuous is not an attractive quality for one to possess.
 
steingar said:
I prefer airplanes that retract the gear and go fast. Not too many of them were made as taildraggers.
Click to expand...
Not too many of them are piston singles either, but I won't make fun of your cute little airplane :cool:

Nauga,
from where one man's Vne is another man's approach speed
 
Do people actually fly nosewheel airplanes without really using the rudder?
Click to expand...

MauleSkinner said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

This guy, for example.


I learned in Grummans, which have a castering nosewheel. The no rudder thing just doesn't work on them.

One thing I have learned from reading Kathryn's Report, is that if I were to resume power plane flying, I would be flying something with fixed trigear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top