what is the advantage of a tailwheel plane?

RyanShort1 said:
It DEMANDS that you fly better. Most of the light tailwheel aircraft will tell you if you are landing sloppy.

Ryan
Click to expand...

Along those lines is it more demanding flying in cruise? I had always believed that it flew the same as a tricycle gear in flight but that on take off and landing was where the additional skills were needed. If it does differ in flight, how so?
 
They are simply the Chuck Norris of the air.
AdamZ said:
Along those lines is it more demanding flying in cruise? I had always believed that it flew the same as a tricycle gear in flight but that on take off and landing was where the additional skills were needed. If it does differ in flight, how so?
Click to expand...
 
AdamZ said:
Along those lines is it more demanding flying in cruise? I had always believed that it flew the same as a tricycle gear in flight but that on take off and landing was where the additional skills were needed. If it does differ in flight, how so?
Click to expand...

The last two weeks I have had the privilege of being at the controls of a Cabin Waco, Super Decathalon, Taylorcraft, 172N, and a 172sp.


With out a doubt the 172s flew like a truck in comparison. The amount of rudder needed was greatest in the Waco, and least in the 172s. I always thought my Tcraft used a lot of rudder until I flew the Waco! In comparison, with the 172 I use too much rudder, lol, it's a first for my CFI!


-VanDy
 
wabower said:
They are simply the Chuck Norris of the air.
Click to expand...


I can second the polished 180 effect. :yes:

You know a plane is special when a six year old kid that doesn't know Jack squat about airplanes says "look at that one mommy!"

Taildraggers stir some primal passion for planes, antiques, muscle, and beauty in young hearts. Especially big taildraggers, which 180s are not minuscule, especially when they're set up on tundra's. DC-3s impress the heck out of me still. :yesnod:

I want your polishing tips....:wink2:

 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
So what's the advantage of a yellow kitchen? I understand the preference of a yellow kitchen, but I fail to see how the color yellow...

makes food taste better
prevents burning of baked goods
reduces energy usage of appliances in the kitchen
cooks food faster
is cheaper than other colors


Sure, the color yellow may look better in a kitchen than other colors, but to declare it as an advantage just because one likes the color, when all other colors have the same effect on the food and appliances, not so much.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. The food tastes better and looks more appetizing when the cook is happy. Cook times and heating are better regulated in a cheerful kitchen. Eating in is cheaper than eating out.
 
Last edited:
I think you don't understand the difference between the terms preference and advantage.
 
Stop by any time and I'll let you learn them first-hand.:p:p

txflyer said:
I can second the polished 180 effect. :yes:

You know a plane is special when a six year old kid that doesn't know Jack squat about airplanes says "look at that one mommy!"

Taildraggers stir some primal passion for planes, antiques, muscle, and beauty in young hearts. Especially big taildraggers, which 180s are not minuscule, especially when they're set up on tundra's. DC-3s impress the heck out of me still. :yesnod:

I want your polishing tips....:wink2:

Click to expand...
 
MultiMediaWill said:
How does one afford a new plane? I am a young person in college, how do you buy a plane?
Click to expand...

New planes are stupidly over-priced, but used airplanes are incredibly CHEAP right now, compared to cars.

Remember -- this plane is new TO ME. It's ten years old, and cost less than a Cadillac Escalade, a Mercedes, or a Corvette -- which I see dozens of every day.

Another example: I am currently asking less than the price of a Beemer for my wonderful four-seat Piper Pathfinder. And it will carry your family safely, quickly, and in style, anywhere on earth.

Airplanes will never be cheaper than they are right now. If you can afford to buy a new car, or a boat, you can afford an airplane.
 
Jay Honeck said:
New planes are stupidly over-priced, but used airplanes are incredibly CHEAP right now, compared to cars.

Remember -- this plane is new TO ME. It's ten years old, and cost less than a Cadillac Escalade, a Mercedes, or a Corvette -- which I see dozens of every day.

Another example: I am currently asking less than the price of a Beemer for my wonderful four-seat Piper Pathfinder. And it will carry your family safely, quickly, and in style, anywhere on earth.

Airplanes will never be cheaper than they are right now. If you can afford to buy a new car, or a boat, you can afford an airplane.
Click to expand...

Plenty of brand new 4 seat (actual American adult) cars out there for waaaaaaaaaay less than a 4 seater airplane.
 
I always get a kick when your friends think you are rich because you own an airplane and they have a brand new $50,000 pickup, $30,000 ski boat and a $75,000 motorhome in their driveway. Don
 
10. A "soft field" takeoff isn't that different from normal.
11. A tail strike is, like, no big deal.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Better hide that QUICK before some jackrabbit nosewheel pilot points out that not a darned one of them taildragging pilots could keep centerline.
Click to expand...

It's a public service. By distributing the wear across the whole width of the runway the runway life is extended.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Better hide that QUICK before some jackrabbit nosewheel pilot points out that not a darned one of them taildragging pilots could keep centerline.
Click to expand...

I usually keep to the right of centerline as I can see the line out of the corner of my eye and catch any drift immediately. As you can see none of these airplanes have any forward visibility. Don
 
I have no doubt that a 170 takes more skill to land than a 172. I have even less that it flies any differently or is any more responsive.

Comparing two-seat rag and tube aircraft to four seat metal ones is apples to oranges.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Better hide that QUICK before some jackrabbit nosewheel pilot points out that not a darned one of them taildragging pilots could keep centerline.
Click to expand...

Lots of tailwheel pilots can't (or don't). Just because they are flying expensive warbirds, doesn't mean they are any more skilled or vigilant than any other tailwheel pilot. There's nothing about these airplanes that prevents a skilled, vigilant pilot from precisely holding centerline on takeoff, landing, and climbout.

yakdriver said:
I usually keep to the right of centerline as I can see the line out of the corner of my eye and catch any drift immediately. As you can see none of these airplanes have any forward visibility. Don
Click to expand...

Which as you know, isn't needed for holding centerline on take-off and landing. Peripheral vision tells you everything you need to know. On climbout, you just need to be aware of the x-wind, and use ground reference as well as you can for setting a crab angle. I like these videos from the rear with long lenses. It really shows up your flying technique.
 
steingar said:
I have no doubt that a 170 takes more skill to land than a 172. I have even less that it flies any differently or is any more responsive.

Comparing two-seat rag and tube aircraft to four seat metal ones is apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


170 is rag and tube?
 
MBDiagMan said:
170 is rag and tube?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I was referring to those singing a rhapsody about tandem two-seater rag and tube aircraft and comparing them to their larger, heavier four seat brethren.

I made the comment about a 170 vs. a 172 simply to point out that the tail wheel itself doesn't do anything magical for the aircraft's handling characteristics. It just so happens that many tailwheel aircraft are two-seat trainers made in the shadow of WWII that do I imagine handle quite a bit differently from most modern airplanes.
 
With regard to prop ground clearance on tailwheels:

I understand some tailwheel planes take off with all 3 wheels leaving the ground at the same time, but for those that lift the tail before rotating, doesn't that eliminate any ground clearance at the very time you would most need it?
 
But, but, but the 170 pilot gets to be more smug.:lol: The advantage of tailwheel planes is they are slightly more dangerous and hence slightly more fun. But you ain't supposed to say it that way, because taking fun in danger is not allowed anymore so you need to dress it up with flowery statements about flying a classic, off airport suitability, or stick and rudder skill enhancement.:wink2:
steingar said:
I have no doubt that a 170 takes more skill to land than a 172. I have even less that it flies any differently or is any more responsive.

Comparing two-seat rag and tube aircraft to four seat metal ones is apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
 
jasc15 said:
With regard to prop ground clearance on tailwheels:

I understand some tailwheel planes take off with all 3 wheels leaving the ground at the same time, but for those that lift the tail before rotating, doesn't that eliminate any ground clearance at the very time you would most need it?
Click to expand...


No, most taildraggers takeoff by lifting the tail first and accelerating on the mains and have plenty of clearance when doing so. It looks like the prop is somewhat close, but what you have to remember is that the mains which the airplane pivots on is also very close to that prop so it would take an extreme angle to actually hit that prop on the ground. Its pretty tough to hit to prop without the plane heading towards tipping completely over on its nose.

Of course there are a couple exceptions, high perf airplane / huge props etc that you need to be extra careful with...but for the most part almost all taildraggers are meant to be flown that way.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Lots of tailwheel pilots can't (or don't). Just because they are flying expensive warbirds, doesn't mean they are any more skilled or vigilant than any other tailwheel pilot. There's nothing about these airplanes that prevents a skilled, vigilant pilot from precisely holding centerline on takeoff, landing, and climbout



Which as you know, isn't needed for holding centerline on take-off and landing. Peripheral vision tells you everything you need to know. On climbout, you just need to be aware of the x-wind, and use ground reference as well as you can for setting a crab angle. I like these videos from the rear with long lenses. It really shows up your flying technique.
Click to expand...

It was 102 degrees with a gusty 15-20kt crosswind. Sometimes you just take what you can get.

What is the big deal if you aren't exactly on centerline. I'm usually 5 feet right of centerline and absolutely straight. Don
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
Additional advantages to tailwheel:


  1. Most of them are less expensive to buy and maintain than equally equipped tricycles....
Click to expand...
Hi Peggy,

I think you have this backwards. A C-180 is worth far more than a similarly equipped C-182. Ditto the C-140 vs C-150. Pacers are so much more in demand than tri-pacers that people in droves convert the PA22's to PA20's. Maintenance wise it's a wash but the initial purchase price (and resale value) are almost universally higher for tailwheel models in cases where all else is nearly-equal.
 
yakdriver said:
What is the big deal if you aren't exactly on centerline. I'm usually 5 feet right of centerline and absolutely straight. Don
Click to expand...

IMHO, many pilots get overly anal about tracking the centerline and/or runway heading, as if strict adherence to these somewhat meaningless rules somehow reflects on airmanship.

There's a difference between "can", "can't", "won't", or "don't care". 70 years ago, most airports were grassy, flat fields, and you landed/departed whichever way the wind blew. Track THAT. :D

I aim for the centerline. If I miss it by a foot, it's because missing it was the prudent thing to do due to crosswinds and not wishing to subject the gear to side stress. Oh, well, I only had 25 times that margin of error to play with. :rolleyes:

New pilots might call that "sloppy". Old aircraft owners call that "smart"...
 
Jay Honeck said:
I aim for the centerline.
Click to expand...
I don't. With a light plane, strong winds, and a wide runway I land at one edge and go across the runway diagonally to lessen the crosswind. The tires don't care if they roll over a painted line.
 
No X/W issues for me. Winds know better than to blow across when T/D is approaching.

JHW said:
I don't. With a light plane, strong winds, and a wide runway I land at one edge and go across the runway diagonally to lessen the crosswind. The tires don't care if they roll over a painted line.
Click to expand...
 
JHW said:
I don't. With a light plane, strong winds, and a wide runway I land at one edge and go across the runway diagonally to lessen the crosswind. The tires don't care if they roll over a painted line.
Click to expand...

Yup, its always prudent to give yourself a healthy margin whenever the crosswinds are at (or over) your comfort level. Landing a bit diagonally can make a huge difference.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I aim for the centerline. If I miss it by a foot, it's because missing it was the prudent thing to do due to crosswinds and not wishing to subject the gear to side stress. Oh, well, I only had 25 times that margin of error to play with. :rolleyes:

New pilots might call that "sloppy". Old aircraft owners call that "smart"...
Click to expand...

Well, for the people who take satisfaction in the precision of hitting the centerline, for no other reason than the satisfaction are NOT going to skid the airplane over and side-load the airplane just for the sake of hitting the centerline. That is sloppy flying. I've never heard of anyone wrecking an airplane due to their attempt at hitting the centerline. It's not a "smart" vs. sloppy thing, it's a satisfaction vs. sloppy thing.

JHW said:
With a light plane, strong winds, and a wide runway I land at one edge and go across the runway diagonally to lessen the crosswind. The tires don't care if they roll over a painted line.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with doing that if it makes you happy, but it has very little effect on reducing x-wind component. Let's say you have a 100' wide runway, planning on a 1000' landing rollout, touch down on the very edge, and come to a stop on the opposite edge. That's only a 6 degree angle from parallel with the runway.

If you had a 25KT, 90 degree x-wind, that diagonal landing would have reduced your x-wind component by a whopping 0.12 KTS. It gets a little better the closer the wind is to the runway heading, but then of course, there's much less x-wind component anyway. You'd save 1.94 KTS of x-wind component with that same wind at 45 degrees, and you'd save 2.50 KTS of x-wind component with that 25KT wind @ 20 degrees. Not sure how many people have actually done the math. I'll stay on center.

Jay Honeck said:
Landing a bit diagonally can make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Not unless you're in a J-3 and landing nearly across a huge wide runway. ;)
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Nothing wrong with doing that if it makes you happy, but it has very little effect on reducing x-wind component. Let's say you have a 100' wide runway, planning on a 1000' landing rollout, touch down on the very edge, and come to a stop on the opposite edge. That's only a 6 degree angle from parallel with the runway.

If you had a 25KT, 90 degree x-wind, that diagonal landing would have reduced your x-wind component by a whopping 0.12 KTS. It gets a little better the closer the wind is to the runway heading, but then of course, there's much less x-wind component anyway. You'd save 1.94 KTS of x-wind component with that same wind at 45 degrees, and you'd save 2.50 KTS of x-wind component with that 25KT wind @ 20 degrees. Not sure how many people have actually done the math. I'll stay on center.
Click to expand...
if you need 1000ft to land this probably isnt your conversation. My light twin lands shorter than that.

when i take the pawnee to town for fuel the runway is 150ft wide. if the wind is howling out of the west I'll land nearly 90 deg to the runway and roll off the edge right onto the taxiway as the tailwheel comes down
 
Say what you want, I know for a fact that when you're out of rudder in a howling west crosswind in Indiana in your fine Comanche that a diagonal landing can save the day. The reason I know is that we tried the centerline method and found it didn't work.
RoscoeT said:
Well, for the people who take satisfaction in the precision of hitting the centerline, for no other reason than the satisfaction are NOT going to skid the airplane over and side-load the airplane just for the sake of hitting the centerline. That is sloppy flying. I've never heard of anyone wrecking an airplane due to their attempt at hitting the centerline. It's not a "smart" vs. sloppy thing, it's a satisfaction vs. sloppy thing.



Nothing wrong with doing that if it makes you happy, but it has very little effect on reducing x-wind component. Let's say you have a 100' wide runway, planning on a 1000' landing rollout, touch down on the very edge, and come to a stop on the opposite edge. That's only a 6 degree angle from parallel with the runway.

If you had a 25KT, 90 degree x-wind, that diagonal landing would have reduced your x-wind component by a whopping 0.12 KTS. It gets a little better the closer the wind is to the runway heading, but then of course, there's much less x-wind component anyway. You'd save 1.94 KTS of x-wind component with that same wind at 45 degrees, and you'd save 2.50 KTS of x-wind component with that 25KT wind @ 20 degrees. Not sure how many people have actually done the math. I'll stay on center.



Not unless you're in a J-3 and landing nearly across a huge wide runway. ;)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Say what you want, I know for a fact that when you're out of rudder in a howling west crosswind in Indiana in your fine Comanche that a diagonal landing can save the day. The reason I know is that we tried the centerline method and found it didn't work.
Click to expand...
Aw crap....why did you have to bring up the diagonal landing technique? Now Ron is going to have to show up in this thread and tell us that is the wrong thing to do and the whole thread will spin out of control.

Speaking of, anybody seen Dan Mac???
 
He was still in grade school.

Fearless Tower said:
Aw crap....why did you have to bring up the diagonal landing technique? Now Ron is going to have to show up in this thread and tell us that is the wrong thing to do and the whole thread will spin out of control.

Speaking of, anybody seen Dan Mac???
Click to expand...
 
JHW said:
if you need 1000ft to land this probably isnt your conversation. My light twin lands shorter than that.
Click to expand...

LOL. I'd love to see you get my One Design stopped short of the 1000' marks on a day when the wind is blowing nasty straight across the runway. I'd like to see video of the same in your "light twin". The example I gave left a 1000' section of pavement to get down and stopped on. Landing on a 1000' "runway" and coming to a stop in 1000' after touching down are two very different things. A 1000' runway is fairly short for almost everyone, not that many planes cannot easily operate in this distance. But when wind gets really nasty, you typically also have a good bit of gusts and mechanical turbulence (in the Northeast anyway), so your touchdown point is not always going to be at minimum speed, inches from where you want it. If you feel otherwise, I'd like to see you 3-point a J-3 in strong, gusty, and turbulent wind consistently on the numbers.

Regarding your example of landing a Pawnee (basically a low-wing Super Cub) across a 150' runway with a massive headwind, well duh. I already mentioned a Cub landing across the runway earlier. I stand behind my point regarding the small effect a typical angled touchdown will have on reducing x-wind component. Unless you can touch down at a very significant angle off the runway heading, there is not a lot of benefit. It's math. Of course if you must put the plane down in conditions which are at the absolute limit of aircraft capability, there are things you can do to make things slightly better. But the difference is not nearly as much as many make it out to be. Again, do the math.

In the airplanes I fly, at the runway widths I come across, I've never felt flying a diagonal landing would be safe or helpful. If I'm in a J-3 and it's blowing 35KTS across a 150' wide runway, yep, I'll land across it and probably come to a stop before reaching the other side. Not a lot of applicability to the rest of the folks flying their Mooneys, Bonanzas, and Warriors at your average airport. Those folks will be doing well to get that 6 degree angle, with the results I've already calculated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top