Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

[First time Juke]

I recently went to fly with a friend of mine in a plane that was converted into a taildagger ( to make it a towplane ).

We ( he ) did 6-7 landings ( including several touch and go:s ) several stalls ( clean and with flaps etc ). Also rehearsed the infamous engine cuts at take off ( at 500 ft ) and plane returns to airfield.

For a pilot with 1000 flying hours all this seemed extremely easy and effortless business.

How is this for a less experinced pilot flying a tricycle plane...I assume the tricycle would cause more air resistance and maneuveres differently in ground handling. The taildagger needed lotsa pedalling and also the costant eye on the speedometer to watch that the airspeed will not be reduced under 65 mph until on the tarmac.

My question is...how much flying hours does it take to really be the master of the taildaggerplane and handle all engine-out situations in the best possible way in emergency...what in your opinion would be the minimum amount of logged flyinghours ?

Is the same amount needed for a nosewheel plane ( does it make any difference ? ) ?

[dvddude]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

A taildragger and a tricycle gear airplane only differ in one aspect and that is the takeoff and landing. There really is no difference in the air as far as anything that is inherently different strictly due to the gear arrangement. A taildragger is harder to takeoff and land, primarily because you don't have that big nose gear keeping the fuselage straight on the runway and the effects of reduced visibility over the nose.

A taildragger acts like a big weathervane as soon as the tail is off the ground and tends to always point into the wind, unless corrected. Because of that it takes a lot of quick, sometimes aggressive, rudder movements to keep the aircraft tracking straight down the runway. A nosewheel will "artificially", if you will, keep the fuselage straight and will tend to greatly reduce the "weathervaning" effects from a crosswind. Once you're in the air, a taildragger acts just like a tricycle geared aircraft.

The other complication of a taildragger is the reduced visibility on takeoff and landing. Because the tail sits lower, the nose protrudes up front and obscures the forward vision for takeoff, in particular, and for landings if you intend on 3 pointing them. Tricycle geared aircraft sit with the aircraft basically level at all speeds until rotation. So there is much better visibility out the front of the aircraft on takeoff in a tricycle gear vs. a taildragger.

As far as how many hours to get proficient? It all depends on the individual. Flying is not something that is inherently easy for most people. Some people have a natural knack for it, while others have to work at it. Given enough hours, the vast majority of people can eventually pick it up and get good. So, there is really no set number. In my own case, I think I had about 10 hours of taildragger time before I soloed an airplane for the first time.

As far as being proficient for the engine-out scenarios, that will be a product of how good an instructor you have and how good your mind is at quick analyzation of variables. These days most instructors heavily emphasize thinking about engine out procedures right from the very first lesson. That is a good thing. You should ALWAYS be thinking about where to land the aircraft if you lose an engine.

In my case, I was taught by a retired Airline Captain, who was also a W.W.II Army Air Corps pilot who flew nearly every bomber, fighter and transport made during the War years. He had experience in literally hundreds of airplanes both military and civilian. He always taught me from the first lesson and onward to ALWAYS think about your back up plan if you lose an engine. He would always pull an engine on me at every opportunity he got on a flight, so I would always be prepared. He would often pull the engine for a simulated engine out anywhere from 5 to 10 times on a flight. Eventually, it got so ingrained in my habit patterns, that I really didn't have to think about it anymore and it just became natural to always analyze your environment and think about things, like terrain, which way the wind is blowing, which way the cows are pointing, which way the furrows run, etc.

During my first solo in a taildragger, I felt very comfortable and confident that I could handle anything, including losing an engine. I guess the short answer is - it depends - and there isn't a set number of hours. People pick up flying at different learning rates and some get quite proficient quickly, while others take some time.

Sorry for rambling on, but that's my 2 cents from my perspective.

[Jelge]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

Dvddude did a good job answering but I would like to add tailwheel aircraft have a natural tendency to swap ends even in a no wind condition if you don't stay on the rudder pedals. For an idea on the extra pedal work required on the ground, take a grocery cart and give it a shove across an EMPTY parking lot. Then try it again, only push it from the end without the handle.

[race9]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

It really depends on what you started in. If you started flying in a tailwheel plane, it probably takes the same time as a nosewheel plane. However, if you're switching, it is easier to go from tailwheel to tricycle, as opposed to tricycle to tailwheel. I've always flown tailwheel planes, and had very little time in tricycle aircraft until we put floats on our 185.

[GeoffS]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

I just want to expand on Jelge's comments about "tail swapping". The big difference between a tail-wheel and tricycle-gear plane is the location of the center-of-mass (aka CG) relative to the main gear.

In a tricycle-gear plane the CG is forward of the main gear, so the tendency is for the plane to track straight against the drag of the landing gear because the CG is ahead of the drag (sort of like a front-wheel-drive car). This is basically a stable configuration; the CG "wants" be directly in front of the drag.

In a tail-wheel plane, the CG is behind the main gear. This is an unstable situation that needs active control (i.e. the pilot using the rudder) to maintain. Just like the tricycle-gear plane, the CG "wants" to be ahead of the drag, only in the tail-dragger case getting to that stable state requires the plane to execute a (usually dramatic) 180-degree turn.

It's basically the same difference between hanging a weight from a string (stable) and balancing the same weight on the end of rod pointing up (unstable).

In terms of hours to proficiency, I don't know the statistics, but most pilots in the 50's and before obtained all their primary training in tail-draggers. I know one person here (Amy, aka "Aeronut") who obtained her private-pilot certificate last year in mostly (exclusively?) tail-wheel aircraft.

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

On the other side of the coin...

Advantage of a tail dragger:

1) Reduced weight,
2) Reduced drag,
3) Better short/soft field capabilities,
4) 5 - 6 knot increase in cruise with same fuel economy (Cesnna 150 conversion results)

Concerning item #3, with a tail-wheeler, the firewall is isolated from nose strut related damage, say from a nose strut sinking in a hole, getting slammed in a nose low landing, etc.

And of course, learning to fly one will make you a somewhat more skilled pilot, at least with rudder control.

Finally, some people just think tail draggers look cooler


There are conversion kits for making tailers from nosers, including converting Cesnna 172s into tail-dragging 170s.

Small slightly-related note: I have had several of both types in the hobby of RC aircraft, and I have more fun with the tail-draggers.

.

[Pete]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

Finally, some people just think tail draggers look cooler


There are conversion kits for making tailers from nosers, including converting Cesnna 172s into tail-dragging 170s.

.

It really turns them into taildraggin mini 180s. (not a bad thing at all) But it can't really be a 170 without the cool round tail feathers.

On the ground visibility issue -- some taildraggers like Citabrias, C-170s, etc. that are piloted from the front seat with modest engines usually have pretty good on-the-ground visibility. (or taildragging twins like DC3, Beech 18) Those with big motors OR backseat pilots (Mustang, corsair, J-3, C-195 etc) you pretty much cant see forward on the ground.

Look at something like my C-170B -- the top of the cowling is pretty close to level when sitting on the ground. The forward visibility in flight attitude just gets better.

Pete

[First time Juke]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

Thanks everyone. I think this subject was well covered by all partisipants.

So teoretically a pilot who is used to maneuvre a taildagger should consider 5-6% increase in drag when trying to reach the airfield in a tricycle layout plane ( of the same type ) in engine out situation.

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Taildagger or tricycle..difference in flying/landing !?

No, the 5%-6% difference in drag I quoted was specific to the model mentioned. Results will vary depending on airframe and landing gear design/set-up of whatever aircraft you are converting.

I'd guess that 1%-6% would better cover the range of all aircraft, as some trike's landing gear are going to be more or less draggy than others.

If the converted tail-dragger is fitted with larger tundra-type tires for off-runway landings (something tail-draggers are better suited for), then the drag could even be greater than the noser.