what is the advantage of a tailwheel plane?

[rbridges]

serious question. I've always assumed they were better for rougher landing strips, but that's just me guessing. They have a few inherent disadvantages over traditional tricycle planes, but people that fly them seem to love them. Fun factor aside, is there another reason people use them?

 

[jhausch]

As you mention, prop clearance for unimproved strips is a big one that meets your stipulation of "fun factor aside" when it comes to bush ops. However, many fly a TW simply for that "fun factor". Some airframes are just not available as nose wheel (aka J-3 Cub).

Others - Cache of having mastered a more difficult plane to land and taxi. Sometimes the TW version of an airplane is a little faster and has a little more useful load.

And, like many other aspects of recreational aviation - because you want it.

Paraphrasing the Borg: Justification is futile

 

[Fearless Tower]

Two main advantages are that as you guessed, they are better on unimproved strips both for prop clearance and trashing/digging in a nosewheel. The other advantage is reduced weight/greater useful load (a tailwheel weighs a whole lot less than a nosewheel installation).

That said, in the modern day, the vast majority of us who fly tailwheels do it because it is fun.

 

[Geico266]

It's the "cool" factor. TW is old school and requires better piloting skills.

 

[rbridges]

It's the "cool" factor. TW is old school and requires better piloting skills.

that's what I've read. OK, you guys answered my question. I just thought I was overlooking something. I'd like to put it on my bucket list.

 

[Geico266]

that's what I've read. OK, you guys answered my question. I just thought I was overlooking something. I'd like to put it on my bucket list.

IMHO is it a great endorsement to go after. You will never look at a nose gear plane the same way again.

 

[RyanShort1]

It DEMANDS that you fly better. Most of the light tailwheel aircraft will tell you if you are landing sloppy.

Ryan

 

[Texastaildragger]

FUN FUN FUN

 

[jnmeade]

Cache of having mastered a more difficult plane to land and taxi.

A cache is (1) a hiding place used for storing provisions or valuables, or (2) a concealed collection of valuable things. The word also functions as a verb meaning to hide or store in a cache. Cachet refers to (1) a mark or indication of superior status, or (2) prestige.

 

[David]

A cache is (1) a hiding place used for storing provisions or valuables, or (2) a concealed collection of valuable things. The word also functions as a verb meaning to hide or store in a cache. Cachet refers to (1) a mark or indication of superior status, or (2) prestige.

, all that for a typo? WOW

 

[jnmeade]

I don't think a tail wheel airplane is much more difficult than a nose wheel plane in nearly any aspect of flight, just as a float plane is pretty similar to a land plane in most (but not all) aspects of flight.

It's the take off and especially landing - most especially cross wind landings that make the TW more challenging.

I'd like one because I want to put tundra tires on it an land on unimproved strips. That said, there are some tricycle planes with monstrous tires that allegedly are as good as TW for that. 3 bladed props help the tri-gear plane with clearance.

It's still, sadly, not all that hard to put a TW on it's nose if you don't handle it well on the ground.

Nearly (certainly not all) TW are high wing, which kind of preselects. A person who hated high wing wouldn't have a tail wheel (in most cases - and there is not a large selection that work well in the rough terrain mode).

I wonder how many who prefer TW have airports with multiple runways so they can minimize cross wind and/or have grass strips which are more forgiving?

A little, tandem TW is next on my list of planes to get to base off my farm.

 

[EdFred]

, all that for a typo? WOW

I dunno. If you're going to use a not so commonly used word to sound like you are in the know, at least use the right one/spell it correctly.

 

[David]

I dunno. If you're going to use a not so commonly used word to sound like you are in the know, at least use the right one/spell it correctly.

Or face the consequences .

 

[EdFred]

Or face the consequences .

Yes, to be chastised by some stranger on the internet!!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

It's the "cool" factor. TW is old school and requires better piloting skills.

Can't require that much more in terms of piloting skills - My airplane is generally reusable after one of my landings.

Of course, one of the most hard core back country airstrip pilots here (Mr. Bement) flys a 172 (IIRC)...

 

[Skylane81E]

They can also be faster than an equivalent nose dragger, the smaller tail wheel at the back is less draggy than the big nose wheel right in the prop wash

 

[wabower]

If you want to meet more people than you ever dreamed possible, attend a fly-in or airshow in an all-polished taildragger of any kind. At first I thought the crowd was simply attracted to my chiseled good looks, but have come to accept that they're more interested in the plane.

 

[whifferdill]

Of course, one of the most hard core back country airstrip pilots here (Mr. Bement) flys a 172 (IIRC)...

But can he do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsD90I8WEk

Another plus for tailwheel gear, besides the lighter weight already mentioned, is pure mechanical simplicity. The majority of the "simple" design plans-built airplanes out there are tailwheel. Almost all purpose-built aerobatic airplanes are tailwheel - again, weight and simplicity.

 

[Dan Thomas]

, all that for a typo? WOW

Sure. You should see all what happens for a little inattention in a taildragger.

Small mistake, big spanking.

Dan

 

[wabower]

It's a 182 and he's pretty good for a small-town boy.

Can't require that much more in terms of piloting skills - My airplane is generally reusable after one of my landings.

Of course, one of the most hard core back country airstrip pilots here (Mr. Bement) flys a 172 (IIRC)...

 

[kontiki]

I've been working on my endorsement in a super decathlon. I hope to eventually buy a 110 hp citabria. I think flying the decathlon is an entirely different pilot experience. You really can feel the effects of every throttle, rudder, airleron input in a way that's just not there in a 172. I think the citabria might be a good way to putz around the local skys on a nice day cheaply, much like you joy ride on a motorcycle only safer.

 

[LDJones]

Technical advantages:
-More prop clearance
-Less drag from third wheel
-Less weight from third wheel

It just made sense from an early design standpoint to go the tail dragger route. The really early ones didn't even use a third wheel, but just a skid....truly a tail "dragger"!

As pointed out, once in flight there's virtually no difference in handling.

 

[LDJones]

If you want to meet more people than you ever dreamed possible, attend a fly-in or airshow in an all-polished taildragger of any kind. At first I thought the crowd was simply attracted to my chiseled good looks, but have come to accept that they're more interested in the plane.

Oh, I bet you're just being modest. Are you sure they're not just coming to comb their hair using that mirror-like finish on your bird??

 

[Skylane81E]

Yep, in flight the differences are more due to different control systems, lighter weight, less power, etc.

Take a true like for like (say a 180 and a 182) and once in the air I can't imagine there really being a difference.

 

[wabower]

Well, the pilots in both planes understand which is the superior airman and more attractive to the ladies.

Yep, in flight the differences are more due to different control systems, lighter weight, less power, etc.

Take a true like for like (say a 180 and a 182) and once in the air I can't imagine there really being a difference.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I bought a tailwheel plane because I thought that the Keystone XL pipeline cut would allow me to have enough room for a landing strip at home. Once that didn't materialize, I still love my tailwheel. Landings and take offs on a grass strip is about as much fun as I can have with my clothes on.

I must admit, there is probably a little bit of macho involved. I'm proud to be a tailwheel pilot.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I don't think a tail wheel airplane is much more difficult than a nose wheel plane in nearly any aspect of flight, just as a float plane is pretty similar to a land plane in most (but not all) aspects of flight.

It's the take off and especially landing - most especially cross wind landings that make the TW more challenging.

I'd like one because I want to put tundra tires on it an land on unimproved strips. That said, there are some tricycle planes with monstrous tires that allegedly are as good as TW for that. 3 bladed props help the tri-gear plane with clearance.

It's still, sadly, not all that hard to put a TW on it's nose if you don't handle it well on the ground.

Nearly (certainly not all) TW are high wing, which kind of preselects. A person who hated high wing wouldn't have a tail wheel (in most cases - and there is not a large selection that work well in the rough terrain mode).

I wonder how many who prefer TW have airports with multiple runways so they can minimize cross wind and/or have grass strips which are more forgiving?

A little, tandem TW is next on my list of planes to get to base off my farm.

I only have one runway at my home airport. Adds to the challenge sometimes. Sometimes even frightfully so.

 

[Silvaire]

Many of the very first airplanes were tricycle geared pushers but as they got bigger and the engine got moved to the front they were designed as taildraggers for a number of reasons, one of them being that they actually did drag the tail which served as the brake. Other reasons were to get ground clearance for the long propeller and to save weight because shock absorption technology of the day was crude and they didn't have paved runways. They also didn't worry much about crosswinds since at the fields they used they just landed into the wind pretty much all the time. Maybe they were easier to manhandle and move around on the ground too.

Today they are still useful for extremely rough terrain such as rocky gravel bars and such but for operations off of any moderately prepared airstrip a 206/207, 208 Caravan or Twin Otter is completely capable of handling the job. If you look at the Experimental Zenair 701/801 they have a big nosewheel and can land just about anywhere anything else can. We used to have a Maule and we would regularly go to backcountry fly-ins where you'd see those and all the decked out Supercubs and 180's sporting $4,000 sets of Alaskan Bushwheels, vortex generators and cargo pods but inevitably some punk kid would show up in a clapped out 150 or some nut in a friggin' Ercoupe and deflate everyone's ego a bit.

Still, it was great fun and that's really what it's all about.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Think others nailed it, stronger landing gear, less prop clearance, less draggy, better ground handling, higher AOA on the ground. Can land 2 or 3 point based on conditions.

I also find that they are easier to handle in x-winds, maybe because I learned how to fly in them, I feel I have much more authority over the aircraft, also the option to 2/3pt it is nice

 

[Skylane81E]

Many of the very first airplanes were tricycle geared pushers but as they got bigger and the engine got moved to the front they were designed as taildraggers for a number of reasons, one of them being that they actually did drag the tail which served as the brake. Other reasons were to get ground clearance for the long propeller and to save weight because shock absorption technology of the day was crude and they didn't have paved runways. They also didn't worry much about crosswinds since at the fields they used they just landed into the wind pretty much all the time. Maybe they were easier to manhandle and move around on the ground too.

Today they are still useful for extremely rough terrain such as rocky gravel bars and such but for operations off of any moderately prepared airstrip a 206/207, 208 Caravan or Twin Otter is completely capable of handling the job. If you look at the Experimental Zenair 701/801 they have a big nosewheel and can land just about anywhere anything else can. We used to have a Maule and we would regularly go to backcountry fly-ins where you'd see those and all the decked out Supercubs and 180's sporting $4,000 sets of Alaskan Bushwheels, vortex generators and cargo pods but inevitably some punk kid would show up in a clapped out 150 or some nut in a friggin' Ercoupe and deflate everyone's ego a bit.

Still, it was great fun and that's really what it's all about.

In a military setting the tail wheel has another advantage, the plane doesn't tip over with the engine removed. This means no tail stands to haul around and keeps the plane moveable during engine off service.

 

[Bill Watson]

If you want to meet more people than you ever dreamed possible, attend a fly-in or airshow in an all-polished taildragger of any kind. At first I thought the crowd was simply attracted to my chiseled good looks, but have come to accept that they're more interested in the plane.

Heck, I miss the attention my ol' Maule would get at almost any airport, despite its questionable looks, muddy bottom and my sad mug.

Yes, justification is futile.

 

[Jaybird180]

But can he do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsD90I8WEk

1- he cheated. PTS standard is +0 on short field landing

Another plus for tailwheel gear, besides the lighter weight already mentioned, is pure mechanical simplicity. The majority of the "simple" design plans-built airplanes out there are tailwheel. Almost all purpose-built aerobatic airplanes are tailwheel - again, weight and simplicity.

2- Got me thinking...I wonder why modern fighters aren't designed as t/w?

 

[whifferdill]

Got me thinking...I wonder why modern fighters aren't designed as t/w?

Because jet jocks wouldn't know WTF to do with the rudder.

And the rear nozzle of the jet engine probably isn't the best place to mount a tailwheel.

 

[nosehair]

Mainly, the big advantage is being able to pick up the tail and swing the nose around into the wind before you prop 'er off so you can take off into the wind without having to drag her skid in the grass to turn into the wind.

 

[EdFred]

1- he cheated. PTS standard is +0 on short field landing

minus zero, plus 200 for private.
minus zero, plus 100 for commercial

 

[Jaybird180]

And the rear nozzle of the jet engine probably isn't the best place to mount a tailwheel.

Seems like a problem begging for a solution - enter directional thrust

 

[Jaybird180]

minus zero, plus 200 for private.

Thanks for the catch....at least you knew what I meant to say.

 

[docmirror]

Haven't read all the responses but the most important by far is that we can lord our landing skills over the plebes that fly 'trikes'.

Only REAL aviators can land a TW plane.

 

[EdFred]

Haven't read all the responses but the most important by far is that we can lord our landing skills over the plebes that fly 'trikes'.

Only REAL aviators can land a TW plane.

Flingwingers might have something to say about that.

 

[docmirror]

Flingwingers might have something to say about that.

Are ewe talking about someone who operates a collect of spare parts, all moving in the same general direction? The infamous vibra-copter? I gots that rating too. neener neener.