Why are taildraggers better STOL planes ?

[sternone]

Why do taildraggers need shorter runways to land ? I should think that with a nosewheel you can apply more brake power, and with a taildragger when you hit the brakes to hard you flip over or get a prop strike ? Tough, taildraggers are considered to be better STOL aircrafts, why ?

[Maoraigh1]

Taildraggers are better on rough (and soft?) runways, but I doubt if they are better on a short, hard, smooth runway. Nosewheel legs are not as strong as main legs.The nosewheel is pushed, the tailwheel is being pulled, and will bounce up more easily as less weight is on it.
I usually fly a low powered taildragger, and rarely fly a C172, which has much better short field performance.
Short field performance depends on stall speed and power available.
Try a full flap, full power, full stall touchdown in a nosewheel aircraft. But DON'T get behind the power curve before the runway threshold -or too high above the runway.
A taildragger will touch the tail first, then the mainwheels will thump down on a full power landing. With a nosewheel it can be done smoothly.
If your wondering why anyone would use this landing technique, I was taught it as a soft surface/deep snow precautionary landing technique in the U.S.

[Flying Binghi]

I've landed an X-air nose dragger in about 10 metres - is that STOL

Comparing two simular aircraft, the C180 and C182, there is little in it re STOL - I think the main difference lays with the ability of the 180 to handle rougher strips... but thats a little different to STOL

[Mike Cross]

Perhaps taildragger pilots are better (by necessity) at landings?;)

[S-Works]

I think Mike has it. Tailwheel pilots tend to land more accurately than nosewheel drivers as they tailwheel aircraft is less forgiving of poor ground handling.

Nosewheel drivers often tend to be sloppy with speeds and handling because they are more forgiving on the ground.

[Contacttower]

It's not really because having a tail wheel actually makes the take off and landing shorter...it's just that a number of very famous taildraggers happen to have very short take off and landing distances. Examples being the Cub, Super Cub, Citibra, Husky (to name just a few). Most are good simply because their wings produce a lot of lift at low speed and have a low stall speed meaning they can come in to land slowly.

Although with an excellent power to weight ratio and super high lift at low speed their taildragger stance means that some can actually be hauled off the ground without raising the tail, making the take off very short, something which couldn't be done in a nose wheel aircraft because the wing naturally sits at a much lower angle of attack.

The C42 three axis microlight is a good example of a nose wheel aircraft that has excellent STOL performance.

[Pilot DAR]

The "S" in STOL stands for short. How short is short? If you were asked to define short, what would it be for any given aircraft. There have been times when I've landed to be asked by the controller if the aircraft was STOL equipped, and I told him it was not. Its as much about the technique.

Undercarriage configuration has very little affect on STOL capabilities. Its pilot technique. Aircraft such as a C172 or C182 (with or without STOL kit) have amazing STOL capability if you fly them differently. Of course, such techniques will put you into a phase of flight during which an engine failure, or gusty wind will much more likely result in an unrecoverable departure from safe flight.

What a STOL kit will do for you is make that very slow flying more safe. It allows the higher angles af attack, with an increased margin before stall.

I would expect that with all other things being equal, I could get an older model C182 off the ground in a shorter distance than the very similar C180. The nosewheel 182 can literally be ripped off the ground with abrupt use of elevator, which the 180 cannot so easily.

I agree that typically taildragger pilots display more precise technique landing, and this is a vital element of good STOL flying. A drag on STOL landing is easier and thus probably shorter in a tricycle though. As previously remarked, you can drag the tail on without bouching the tailwheel, and screwing the whole landing up! I have in the past, in my STOL C150, dragged the tail tiedown ring in the grass before the mains touched. I learned quickly to not do that, fixing that hardpoint is not an easy task! 'Good STOL landing though!

Some aircraft types which are predisposed to being "STOL" seem to me to just be more comfortable in slow flight, and thus can be confidently flown slower on approach. Last week I checked myself out in a very not STOL Bellanca Viking. I determined a comfortable approach speed to be 85 to 90 MPH minimum. When I went up high and did power on stalls, I found that steady flight was possible at 60 MPH, but there's no way I'd feel comfortable approaching at such a low speed. The Cessna 210 would be very similar to the Viking in many characteristics, but would also be more comfortable to fly closer to its stall speed power on or off. We don't think of either type as STOL, but the 210 would be much closer, in the hands of a skilled pilot.

STOL planes are more likely found in roles which are not typical of your average tricycle aircraft, so they're branded differently. Tricycle aircraft generally make much poorer ski planes, a role also considered STOL.

Pilot DAR

[egbgstudent]

I will not dwell on why taildraggers are the better type for whichever kind of flying, but this link will show what can be done in a taildragger...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWDEYpqS0yw

:D:D:D

[RatherBeFlying]

As before mentioned, short strips tend to be rough and tailwheel a/c seem less subject to ancilliary damage than nosewheels.

Tailwheel leaf springs do get broken, but that's usually less expensive than a bent firewall -- or worse, a bent prop and engine teardown.

[SNS3Guppy]

It's not the tailwheel, it's the airplane. It's all in the design.

I've landed a 150 vertically; you can't get much shorter than that. In a strong wind, I flew it to the tiedowns and landed...in the tiedown spot.

Depends on the tailwheel airplane. Some that I fly don't land short at all.

Then again, based on recent events, even a 777 can be landed short :}!

[RJ Kanary]

I have a vague recollection of a pilot that got a major chewing out from the powers that be by turning the nose of his aircraft into the wind and making a vertical take off.THAT would have been fun to watch. :)

[llanfairpg]

Most tailwheels are fabric covered and therefore much lighter hence over the fence more slowly and a shorter ground roll.

[homeguard]

To answer sternone.

With a tricycle aeroplane the surface drag from the nose wheel is a major element of drag during the initial T/O run. As the nose is lifted drag from that reduces however the downforce from the Tailplane increases the surface pressure from the main wheels increasing drag. Further there is an increase in induced drag when the nose is raised until the aircraft becomes airborne.

With a tailwheel aircraft there is of course no nosewheel drag. When the tail is raised neither is there an increase in drag caused by the mains. Induced drag is reduced. When the nose is raised for take-off although the tailplane produces additional downforce the mains become lighter, the mains being so much further forward than on a tricycle.

With regard to the landing. The benefits are less however you are able to create more induced drag during the hold-off than with a conventional tricycle type. Once the wheels touch down induced drag continues to give benefit with the tail wheel/skid firmly on the ground. With a tricycle type this same induced drag is lost when the nose wheel is lowered.

[englishal]

My tricycle gear is very STOL....but then again I have leading edge slats ;)

[IFollowRailways]

Thats funny - So does mine!

In the words of Rolf Harris - "Have you guessed what it is yet"?

[Rod1]

Tin parrot?

Rod1

[SNS3Guppy]

Lots of fun ideas, but none of them pass the common sense test. Nosewheel airplanes are also fabric...so the fabric doesn't make the difference. Some tailwheel airplanes are considerably heavier...still not what makes the differrence. Some have more or less power...I've flown single engine tailwheel airplanes over 1,400 hp, and they took plenty of time to get off the ground, and had good, long landing rolls. Even wth reverse capability.

It's the design of the airplane, folks, that makes the difference, and has nothing to do with having conventional gear or tricycle gear. Numerous other factors come into play including density altitude, center of gravity, piloting skilla and technique, airfoil type, aircraft weight, etc.

With a tricycle aeroplane the surface drag from the nose wheel is a major element of drag during the initial T/O run.


So is the tailwheel, though in many cases the tailwheel assembly is lighter and smaller. Remember that the tailwheel must be picked up off the ground too, and in so doing additional induced drag is produced.

When the nose is raised for take-off although the tailplane produces additional downforce the mains become lighter, the mains being so much further forward than on a tricycle.


Under very specific conditions that may be true, but under many conditions it may also be false. When weight is reduced on the mains of an airplane, it's because the wings are producing lift and taking the load off the gear.

The horizontal stab on a conventional gear airplane and on a tricycle gear airplane may be experiencing a download, an upload (lift), or a neutral load, depending on center of gravity and the design of the aircraft.

Simply changing the configuration from tricycle gear to conventional gear or back again on the same type aircraft doesn't make an appreciable difference in the distance or length of time in which the aircraft gets off the ground.

[llanfairpg]

C150 when converted has much better short field perf so it must be weight reduction and lack of nosewheel drag and less rolling resitance

[SNS3Guppy]

The cessna 150 texas taildragger conversion was a ridiculous idea and ruined a good airplane. Particularly with the swept tail versions, it lacked in low speed and ground handling, with poor rudder authority with the tail down and at low speeds.

[Flying Binghi]

The cessna 150 texas taildragger conversion was a ridiculous idea and ruined a good airplane

Probably being a bit harsh Guppy :) - with the proper vertical tail I thought the 150 texas tail dragger looked cute.

Seen a picture somewhere of a 150 tex with a bumper sticker on it saying - When I grow up I want to be a One eighty five.
The 150 was parked under the wing of a 185. Probably a 'His and Hers' situation :eek:

[SNS3Guppy]

Generally we measure the value of an aircraft, and the charactaristics of it's design, in terms other than "it looks really cute."

[Flying Binghi]

Generally we measure the value of an aircraft, and the charactaristics of it's design, in terms other than "it looks really cute."


Guppy, I've never owned a 150 tex myself, though I see a few around - so they must meet somebodys mission profile. (perhaps they just want to look cute when they fly) :)

Back to Sternones thread starter, perhaps he should of asked - Why are tail wheel aircraft better allround bush planes when comparing machines of simular cruise speeds, load carrying and range abilitys... and simular hourly running costs.

My thoughts re bush field use, are that at the lightest end of the scale - Ultralights, there is probably no real difference. As the weight increases to the Cub to 185 range, there is a benifit to having conventional gear. As the aircraft weight increases past, say the Porter range, then where the wheels are probably dont matter.

[sternone]

Well, my question rose when i saw the movie of these insane pilots: Big rocks and long props http://www.bigrockslongprops.com/ they probably need the tailwheel because their landing terrain is so rugged but most of the STOL aircrafts seems to be taildraggers...

[deice]

And not a Mooney in sight Sternone!
They must build crap bushplanes... :}

Can't say exactly why it is so, but I'll put the Pawnee or Super Cub into any field without worry while I'm less inclined to do so with most "normal" tricycles. C172/182 come to mind as relatively useful bushplanes however but they're no match for 180/185s I suppose.

[Contacttower]

The cessna 150 texas taildragger conversion was a ridiculous idea and ruined a good airplane. Particularly with the swept tail versions, it lacked in low speed and ground handling, with poor rudder authority with the tail down and at low speeds.


We had a little discussion about the C152 TT a while ago...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301800

I'm not really sure about the conversion myself, although the one I've flown cruised at 100-105kts indicated which just goes to show how much drag the nose wheel was causing. The problem I find with it is the take off, above 40kts on a rough runway it simply will not stop bouncing and can often bounce into the air before it's ready to fly.

[Tony Hirst]

All other things being equal I think that Homeguard identified the specific reason why t/ds tend towards shorter runs. Indeed with a tricycle gear SEP/MEP off grass an alternative technique is not to rotate per se but to maintain an appropriate amount of back pressure on the stick to take some load of the nose wheel, the aircraft will just fly and usually in a shorter run than the usual 'rotate at x speed' tarmac technique.

Re bouncing 152 Tex during take off - in my experience probably due to not getting the tail up far enough during the run. Lovely aircraft and very benign in my opinion.

[Flying Binghi]

Contacttower,

Re. the 152 tex thread, probably a set of the smaller tundra tyres will fix the three point attitude and bounce problems - will bring the speed back 5 kt or so though.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Interesting how these discussions go.

I converted a Cessna A150M to the Texas Taildragger with the extended gear and it was a delightful little toy to own and fly....or to control on the ground.

Like I said these discussions are only personal opinions which make them so interesting.


The cessna 150 texas taildragger conversion was a ridiculous idea and ruined a good airplane. Particularly with the swept tail versions, it lacked in low speed and ground handling, with poor rudder authority with the tail down and at low speeds.

Hmmmm... I'm not the worlds best tail wheel pilot but I didn't find my Cessna tail wheel machine to be all that difficult to fly....come to think about it the Pitts can be a bit demanding to keep straight on the runway but I wouldn't say it is a poor design.

Ahhhh well, to each his / her own I guess.

[homeguard]

Chuck

Did you find any reduction in the C150 T/O run required over the tricycle original?

If so, did you find this on all surfaces or only specific i.e soft ground?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I only flew it off runways and there was no noticeable difference in the take off distance that I can recall.

It just looked and flew more like my kind of airplane.!!:ok:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ChuckEllsworth/P1010783.jpg

[Contacttower]

Actually with a wide undercarriage track and low stance meaning the brakes can be used without too much risk of nosing over the ground handling is actually quite good. I hadn't noticed any particular lack of rudder authority.

[IFMU]

If an aircraft has a tailwheel it doesn't necesarily mean it's a good stol airplane. I fly a C140, with a lowly C85 on the front. Up at gross, which isn't much people/fuel, the takeoff roll is long and the climb is underwhelming. That's all about power loading. But I can get it down and stopped pretty short. That's all about wing loading. If I hop in the super cub, it's got both low power and wing loading and it is a great stol airplane.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa72/Aerowerk/Cottonboysflying06.jpg

The PA12 is a stol-ish airplane. Only the same hp as the C152, but it has lots of wing and great slow speed characteristics. The gear will take a beating, it's a lot better than most nosewheel airplanes for rough fields.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa72/Aerowerk/PA-12inthewinter.jpg

-- IFMU

[2hotwot]

The tailwheel 150 says a great deal about the psychology of taildraggers. My experience of the 150 with either the wheel at the front or at the back is that their performance is exactly the same (depending more on whether you have one with a good engine or not) and if you land the nosewheel as should be done ie with a proper flare and in a straight line, then the landing technique is identical. The difference is that the taildragger is harder to climb into, sits at an angle to the ground and is for some unidentifiable reason much more fun to fly - but I guess you can put that down to personal bias.

[Mike Cross]

My experience of the TT v standrd 150/152 is this.

Main gear is further forward on the TT, which, combined with the tailwheel prevents you from rotating to the same AoA than the trike. This means you have to hold it down until the correct rotate speed, otherwise the tailwheel hits the ground and you just slow down.

More care needed in the circuit to get the speed down withut the nose gear drag.

If you can't hold the thing on the ground till it's ready to fly you need more lessons. Just use a littgle forwad pressure to stop it being bounced into the air. That's a characteristic of the undamped sprung main gear and nothing to do with the position of the third wheel.

Handling in the cruise no different to a standard C150/152 but a little faster.

[Flying Binghi]

Wot, No Tundra tyres!!!! :eek:


IFMU, I thought big tyres were 'de rigueur' in the US of A

[IFMU]

IFMU, I thought big tyres were 'de rigueur' in the US of A
Flying Binghi,

Not in my neck of the woods. Here in the northeast most of our flying is airport to airport. The farm strips I've been in are all suitable for a C150. One of the farm strips where I recovered a glider was even paved.

I've seen those neat Alaska videos, where they land on the gravel bars etc. But I think if somebody has tundra tires around here, it's for show. Most folks would rather have the extra cruise speed and money in their pockets for the local area here.

-- IFMU

[SNS3Guppy]

Hmmmm... I'm not the worlds best tail wheel pilot but I didn't find my Cessna tail wheel machine to be all that difficult to fly....come to think about it the Pitts can be a bit demanding to keep straight on the runway but I wouldn't say it is a poor design.


I said nothing of difficulty. It's just a stupid idea.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I said nothing of difficulty. It's just a stupid idea.

Well fair is fair I guess if you can call me stupid for converting my airplane I guess that gives me the liberty to decide you sound like an arrogant jerk. :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

Go easy Chuck, Guppys probably just a little grumpy - winter does that to you.

IFMU, those Tundra tyres wouldnt suit a lot of Oz either. Amongst the many sharp weeds we have, there is one called Galvanized Burr - simular effect to a piece of Iowa barb laying on the ground.

[Billredshoes]

Are Taildragger pilots better ? no but we have MORE FUN and
you can fly some thing like this :) :) :)

http://www.an2club.info/images/_MG_3797.jpg