Small wheel controversy!

[Dan Winterland]

I fly at a club which has a very friendly and convivial atmosphere. in fact, it's about the best club I have ever flow with. However, there is one problem, as I seem to frequently create controversy with an opinion I hold. The club has about ten aircraft (not exactly sure how many), of which I have only flown one. This is because it has the small wheel at the end of the aircraft where God intended it to be. At the tail! I refuse to pay to fly any aircraft which is otherwise configured.

In addition, it has a stick and a throttle on the left hand side (also as God intended), with inverted oil and fuel systems - so can be flown upside down (maybe not exactly God's wish - but it's a lot of fun!). On the club's fb page and at social events, I have frequently stated my (correct) opinion on the matter, and it seems to provoke some ire. it seems that there are many pilots out there who don't wish to participate in real flying, and the poor thing remains underutilised and shunned by the rank and file of recreational pilots.

Am I alone in my (correct) opinion?

http://williamthecoroner.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/istock_can-of-worms.jpg

[glum]

Can you clarify which God - there are so many to choose from, so we should be clear before we start argu... discussing.

[ETOPS]

No - in a former life I instructed at a club that operated,from time to time, a Chipmunk, then an L4 Grasshopper and the a Citabria 7GcBc. I really look forward to checking the members on these but business was always slow - most preferring the C150/172 flying.

I ended up using them myself on quiet days...

[Camargue]

sounds like she is yours to appreciate all by yourself. I trust she has 4 wings, as god intended.... :)

[ChickenHouse]

I don't see the controversy. If you are of the opinion that "a God" created flying wonders to have their wheel at the tail, just do that. Don't bother that you may have a yoke or stick in your back and you may have trouble looking at the direction of your tail wheel, but a huge windows backwards behind which an engine blows the spirit of God. Just be careful to choose reverse gear for the aircraft with a bigger wheel in the back and the huge windows behind you and let God decide which is better.

[Sam Rutherford]

Just keep the little wheel behind you and all will be perfect!

[Katamarino]

I can't really understand people who think that the arrangement of wheels on their airplane is some kind of a big deal. Fly your damn airplane and let everyone else fly their damn airplane. Nobody else cares about your opinion, and there's no reason you should care about theirs!

I fly whatever I feel like flying, no matter where the wheels are. Seems dumb to limit myself.

[nkt2000]

Rule No. 1 - DW is always right (Substitute your name here)
Rule No.2 - If in doubt, rule No.1 applies
Rule No.3 - There is no rule No.3:)

[foxmoth]

Can you clarify which God - there are so many to choose from, so we should be clear before we start argu... discussing.

Surely for Aviation it has to be the FSM!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[The Ancient Geek]

You are in a minority of one.
Many pilots like to see where they are going on the ground and like a bit of directional stability when landing in a crosswind. OTOH they miss out on getting into some rough old short strips but life is a compromise so wibble flip........

[Genghis the Engineer]

You are wrong Dan, because all flying is good - after that it's a matter of detail.


The two most fun aeroplanes in my logbook - a BAe Hawk and Scottish Aviation Bulldog both had a training wheel at the front.

Close behind, the Chipmunk and Stinson Voyager both have a tailwheel.

The most boring aeroplane I've ever flown: the C172 has a training wheel, but the scarcely difference C170 doesn't.

All flexwing microlights have a nosewheel, and I defy you to find anything much more fun than throwing a big engined well designed flexwing around for half an hour.

G

[abgd]

If one-upmanship is the name of the game, I think my aircraft was nicer with a skid at the back. A necessity on concrete though.

Seriously, it doesn't really matter. And there's a lot to be said for not having an aircraft that's itching to bite you if you put a foot wrong. I like the aerodynamic and weight benefits of doing without the nosewheel but it's just a design tradeoff against more challenging handling on the ground. People would still fly Pittses if they were made easy to land.

[Crash one]

DW, your club has a friendly an convivial atmosphere.
If you continue to stuff your tailwheel down everyone's throat, that atmosphere may change.
Be thankful for the current atmosphere.
Ask yourself (if you know the answer) how many of your associates CAN fly the tailwheel but choose not to.
I fly a tailwheel, most of my club fly tailwheels, those that don't are not pilloried for it.
If you removed every nosewheel aircraft you would have a lot less chance of flying anything at all.
In a nutshell, Get o'er yerself!

[foxmoth]

You are in a minority of one.

Whilst i disagree with this, there are many that prefer tailwheel, personally I am happy with either, much more interested in how it handles once off the ground, but I would certainly agree with those that say do not shove it down other peoples throats, sadly most pilots are more interested in an aircraft that gets them from A to B rather than actually enjoying the flying per se.

[Armchairflyer]

Unable to identify the OP's point of this "controversy" post, apart from telling the audience about his special aireligious beliefs. IMHO Katamarino is spot on.

And with a big SCNR up front and showing myself the red card for not playing the ball: some passages from the initial statement suggest that tailwheel aircraft are indeed the safer choice here, because if the pilot's seat were even slightly behind the main gear in a trike, the weight of the ego might tip it on the tail.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Am I alone in my (correct) opinion?
Ah, well, you see, there are those of us who have worked out that if we want to buy weird sick-making G forces [which I personally don't, but some clearly do] it's vastly cheaper to do so at the fairground than by flying aerobatic aircraft.

[DeltaV]

All flexwing microlights have a nosewheel, and I defy you to find anything much more fun than throwing a big engined well designed flexwing around for half an hour.
Some while ago I saw a flexwing trike, landing at a grass strip, trip over its front wheel rather like a Reliant Robin and wrap itself up in its wing. That rather put me off the things.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Most aeroplanes have some way of crashing!

G

[XX514]

You are in a minority of one.Demonstrably untrue!

Dan - Whilst I don't recall such an unequivocal opinion when you flew the Z242L, I am 100% with you regarding the proper configuration of aeroplanes. Some of us grew out of tricycles when we were 3 years old.

[9 lives]

If pilots are getting flying, the location of the third wheel is of secondary importance. I have a plane of each type, and enjoy the pleasures of each. That said I do my darnedest to keep the third wheel off the surface as much as possible.

Once you're away from hard surface, taildragger is going to make itself more likeable. Once you go on skis, tailwheel is the only way to go.

[Dan Winterland]

The two most fun aeroplanes in my logbook - a BAe Hawk and Scottish Aviation Bulldog both had a training wheel at the front. Close behind, the Chipmunk and Stinson Voyager both have a tailwheel.

Bulldog better than a Chipmunk? That's heresy! I must agree with you on the Hawk though, the most fun jet I've ever flown.

Dan - Whilst I don't recall such an unequivocal opinion when you flew the Z242L

Aaah - I think I know who you are! Yes, the 242 was the best of the JEFTS candidates - the only one which had military trainer characteristics. Very much like the Dog, but with better handling.

[dont overfil]

There's a guy I know who thinks most taildragger pilots are sissies.
He has a Europa monowheel. :p

[ShyTorque]

Let's face it - some of the "most fun" aircraft don't even have wheels....

[Small Rodent Driver]

Some while ago I saw a flexwing trike, landing at a grass strip, trip over its front wheel rather like a Reliant Robin and wrap itself up in its wing. That rather put me off the things.

DeltaV, is your name inspired by an Emerson controls product by any chance?

[Crash one]

There's a guy I know who thinks most taildragger pilots are sissies.
He has a Europa monowheel. :p

Is that the one with a new prop on it!!!

[9 lives]

Let's face it - some of the "most fun" aircraft don't even have wheels....

Is very true, though each of those different types demands its own special attention, which "stuck pedals" and autorotation practice, sailing and docking skills, and judging snow depth and characteristics from above.

As I say, whatever gets people flying!

[Sam Rutherford]

Any chance of having the subject corrected to: controversy?

Just a thought!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Bulldog better than a Chipmunk? That's heresy! I must agree with you on the Hawk though, the most fun jet I've ever flown.
I quite liked the Chipmunk, I just think that the Bulldog is a much nicer aeroplane. Better view, easier to manage, better power:weight...

If it was tandem seating, it'd be close to perfect!

G

[Flyingmac]

Any chance of having the subject corrected to: controversy?

Just a thought!

That could be considered a controvosial move.:=

[piperboy84]

Doesn't matter what you fly, tailwheel, nose wheel, centre wheel, skids, skis or floats. In this day and age with avgas costing a fortune, airfields getting housed over we should consider ourselves lucky to be able to line up, power in and wait for that excellent moment we leave terra firma and do what we love, FLY!

[vector4fun]

Well, some folks would say that if it doesn't have a round engine manufactured by P&W, or Curtis Wright, it's just a toy.

DHC-2 was fun, but actually, a T-34 with an IO-550 is a blast. I've also got 50 minutes at the controls of a T-39, which was also a joy to fly. (no, we did NOT fly it straight and level.)

[Dan Winterland]

There's a guy I know who thinks most taildragger pilots are sissies.
He has a Europa monowheel.

Ha ha. But it's still a taildragger. I used to own a Fournier RF3. I often successfully negotiated 50% discount on landing fees as it only had one wheel!

I quite liked the Chipmunk, I just think that the Bulldog is a much nicer aeroplane. Better view, easier to manage, better power:weight... If it was tandem seating, it'd be close to perfect!

With about a thousand hours on the Chippy and less than a hundred on the 'dog, I'm bound to be biased! And I only flew the Bulldog at CFS and never in anger with a real student. The qualities you mention were an improvement on the Chippy, particularly the power. But I never liked side by side for a military trainer, and the stick with the left hand was a disadvantage. It's was easier to fly (apart from the way the RAF contrived to use the CS prop) but this isn't necessarily a good thing. The RAF used the Chippy up to 1993 at EFTS, which still had an element of grading, and for that the Chippy was brilliant. It had it's problems - a prehistoric engine, limited crosswind capability and maintenance issues. But we still used it in preference to it's replacement. And neither of the two aircraft that followed were as good as pilot trainers.

Why haven't we been able to evolve training aircraft at the same rate as the rest of the industry? Could be a good subject for a paper!

[BEagle]

Dan, you were fortunate enough at Swinderby to have several runways from which to fly, so the crosswind issue was less of a problem. As a student I flew Chippies at White Waltham and again, plenty of runways and even better, all were grass.

At RAF Abingdon even with 2 runways at right angles, there were days when the Bulldogs could fly, but the Piston Engined Agressor Squadron AEF cowboys were grounded.

Flying with the left hand didn't seem to present any difficulties to our students when I was QFI-ing.

When the MoD flogged off the Chippies, it was suggested that I should acquire one for the station flying club. Much to my regret, I refused - we only had one RW and I was also pretty sure that someone would probably overstress, someone else would over-rev and quite a few would probably groundloop as there was only one RW.... A Chippie is fine as a privately-owned aeroplane looked after by doting owners familiar with the breed, but too much of a risk for a club owned aeroplane. We also considered a Bulldog - until we thought about the maintenance costs and fuel burn.

But both the Chipmunk and Bulldog were infinitely better military trainers than the T-67 or das Teutor!

[Genghis the Engineer]

On that last point, I most certainly agree.

At every level, from the Tinano onwards, the RAF just abandoned anything that looked like assessment and procurement best practice. There may have been good political reasons for this with the Tincano itself - but those two and the Vigilant were all masterpieces of mis-acquirement by people playing at what should have been someone's core professional activity.

G

[Dan Winterland]

The choice of aircraft is always political. The replacement for the Chippy and Bulldog in the JEFTS contract was always going to be about the total package and not just the aircraft. The T67 probably would not have been the choice had it been based on aircraft alone. Mind you, I'm not sure how Huntings became the choice of provider, except on price.

The JP replacement was specified as a turboprop - there were only ever going to be 2 contenders. The choice was political and in the end, I don't think it was a bad one. By the time I got to fly the Tucano, most of the issues had been sorted out (we were up to the Mk16 version of the Engine Electronic Control!) and in the end, the RAF ended up with a good training aircraft. It's certainly better than the JP, and from my few flights in a PC9, I get the impression there is little to chose between them - except that I consider the Tuc to be a slightly better training environment - particularly compared to the Swiss built PC9s with their engine control.

Had the procurers listened to the RAF, we would have probably ended up with something like the S211.

Speaking of the political procurement of the Tucano, the aircraft were built my Short's mostly Roman Catholic workforce and when the aircraft were delivered from the factory, they were left on a remote stand on the other side of the airfield for four weeks just in case they had a bomb built into them! (The longest duration timer available to the IRA was 28 days allegedly!

[Jetblu]

Not sure that I understand the nonsense about the location of the 'little wheel'.

Flying is flying and each type has its own pleasures.

I loved the Cub for a local fun fly, but a serious touring tool 4/5 up, she wasn't.

Anything that will fly is good news. :)

[ShyTorque]

Speaking of the political procurement of the Tucano, the aircraft were built my Short's mostly Roman Catholic workforce and when the aircraft were delivered from the factory, they were left on a remote stand on the other side of the airfield for four weeks just in case they had a bomb built into them! (The longest duration timer available to the IRA was 28 days allegedly! There was a hangar queen Tincano at CFS Scampton during my time there. They took the ejection seats out for servicing and they couldn't get them back in again. Seemed that someone at Shorts had a setsquare that was well past its best!

[Johnm]

If you want to land in odd places an aeroplane with the little wheel at the back, like a Pilatus Porter might well be good. Otherwise one with the wheels placed sensibly for runway landing and which disappear from view when not required is much better.

[Planemike]

The PAC 750XL can land pretty well anywhere that a PC-6 can land, it has a wheel up front...!!!

[DeltaV]

Since we digressed briefly towards Tuncano/PC9 territory I always rather liked the BN Firecracker.

[BEagle]

DeltaV wrote: Since we digressed briefly towards Tuncano/PC9 territory I always rather liked the BN Firecracker.

You did? Everyone I knew at the time said that the Fearcracker was a complete and utter PoS!

[ChampChump]

I used to own a Fournier RF3. I often successfully negotiated 50% discount on landing fees as it only had one wheel!

When I flew a Falke I tried that. It was pointed out that I actually had four....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Since we digressed briefly towards Tuncano/PC9 territory I always rather liked the BN Firecracker.
It still exists - the National Test Pilot School in Mojave acquired it and use it to teach new test pilots about aircraft assessment.

There is, of course, a saying... "There are good aeroplanes, and good test pilot school aeroplanes".

G

[piperboy84]

Along the same vein of "it doesn't matter what you fly" I am down at the strip today filling in rabbit holes and parked up in one corner are 4 micro lights (2 fixed wing and 2 weight shift) on the other side is a guy flying an RC piper cub, and down the end is another guy familiarizing himself with his para kite thingy (the one you strap a fan on your back). So no rules on where the wheel has to be or even have a wheel at all, it's whatever floats your boat that matters.

[foxmoth]

Used to see Peter Philips with the Firecracker at Goodwood, he was getting on a bit and IIRC needed a ladder and assistance to get into it - but some very impressive flying once he got it in the air!

[kghjfg]

Does it matter where they are ? Isn't the important thing if they are retractable ?

[DeltaV]

My own little aircraft is tailwheel and I like that but more than where it's mounted it's the entire aircraft that I like. In that regard, much more significant for the overall flying experience I do most definitely agree with this part of the OP.


In addition, it has a stick and a throttle on the left hand side

[foxmoth]

Well the Airbus is OK but personally prefer the stick in the center!:8

[glum]

If tailwheels are so good, why don't fast jets have them?

[foxmoth]

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=359

[Jan Olieslagers]

Yes. That's one very succesful design that entirely set the road for all subsequent fast jets.

(not ...)

[Jan Olieslagers]

If tailwheels are so good, why don't fast jets have them?

Tailwheels are very good indeed - for those skygods that can master them. Which was all the purpose for creating this thread, I reckon.

[foxmoth]

Actually a proper explanation of why tailwheels are not favoured for jet aircraft here:-
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1946/1946%20-%201522.PDF

Tailwheels are very good indeed - for those skygods that can master them.
tailwheel no more needs the pilot to be a "skygod" than most other areas of aviation, just needs proper training!

[India Four Two]

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=359

This link is confusing at best, It implies that the Attacker had tricycle gear.

It was a tail-dragger because an unmodified Spiteful wing was used.

[markkal]

http://cessna170.backcountrypilot.org/wiki/images/b/b2/Land-o-matic.jpg

....And Cessna created the Land O Matic aircraft back then, so it could be landed by pilots who just stood there motionless and waited after the flare..... Floating forever at impossible speeds, landing sideways, flaring high and hitting hard, flaring low and bouncing, landing front wheel first......But the geometry of this landing gear and its ruggedness made all of this possible, GREAT Invention.....

This is not to say that the " Land O'Matic Drivers" That's how Cessna calls them... are all bad, there are a number who land without squealing (0 Drift touchdown), gently hold the the main gear til all speed bleeds off, and keep the nosewheel up along the way, approach at correct speed the selected point on the runway, aligned with the centerline.....always touching down within the same spot... BUT They are a minority just go watch at your local aerodrome....The fact is that many instrcutors today cannot properly land an aircraft, so their students cannot be expected to be up to the task..

And then crosswing landings, there is no arguing here.....taildraggers trained pilots and especially instructors do it better, much much better, period...

[DeltaV]

If tailwheels are so good, why don't fast jets have them?
May not be strictly classed as a fast jet but it is a jet and it is a taildragger.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ih57FiOeZXU/maxresdefault.jpg

[Jan Olieslagers]

Yes yes. Looks like another very succesful design that entirely set the road for all subsequent fast jets.

What is it, actually? Lockheed U-2 or such? Really what today's world is waiting for!

[DeltaV]

Yes it's a U2, the Dragon Lady.
The Supermarine Attacker wasn't the only one. The Me262 began life as a taildragger too, but then the Germans saw sense. But, I can't imagine there are many who frequent the Private Flying PPRuNe forum who have a jet as their vehicle of choice for fun flying. I could be wrong though. I lead a sheltered life.

[treadigraph]

Supermarine 510 (http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/supermarine-510-vv106/6-30-56.aspx), a step between the Attacker and the Swift was also a taildragging jet fighter.

Always liked the looks of the original Firecracker, perhaps because Desmond Norman and Peter Phillips let me sit in it in the hangar at Goodwood when I was about 15!

[9 lives]

Taildraggers offer operational advantages in certain very specific environments (undeveloped runways, ski flying and flying boats) , and are great for improving one's piloting skills. However, the majority of aircraft operations do not benefit from these characteristics, and are sensitive to the reduced directional stability during certain phases of ground operations. Its great that pilots might become proficient in taildraggers, they will be better pilots for it. Similarly, they will be better pilots for receiving aerobatic/instrument/multi engine/night/rotorcraft training too! Learn and practice every type of flying you can!

[Small Rodent Driver]

Taildraggers offer operational advantages in certain very specific environments (undeveloped runways, ski flying and flying boats) , and are great for improving one's piloting skills. However, the majority of aircraft operations do not benefit from these characteristics, and are sensitive to the reduced directional stability during certain phases of ground operations. Its great that pilots might become proficient in taildraggers, they will be better pilots for it. Similarly, they will be better pilots for receiving aerobatic/instrument/multi engine/night/rotorcraft training too! Learn and practice every type of flying you can!

Yeah but don't taildraggers just look a whole lot better? ;)

P-51 with a nosewheel? Nah.

[Crash one]

Tailwheels are very good indeed - for those skygods that can master them. Which was all the purpose for creating this thread, I reckon.

I'm still trying to come to terms with being a God.
Should I expect mere mortals to prostrate themselves before me?

[Jan Olieslagers]

:)

It takes more to be divine than to master one particular technique. I think it must be a kind of a mindset thing.

That said, if you can stand disappointment it never hurts to expect ;)

[Dan Winterland]

Tailwheels are very good indeed - for those skygods that can master them. Which was all the purpose for creating this thread, I reckon.

The purpose of creating the thread was to generate discussion - which it has done. I was interested to find out why, when a club has such an experience available, why so few pilots want to try it. There is an aircraft available, for the same cost as the PA28 which requires a slightly different set of skills, can fly aerobatics and spin. Yet, only a few people feel the need to try it. I can appreciate that some pilots just don't want to fly aerobatics, but just to experience a different form of aviation will probably make you a better pilot, even if flown for only a few hours.

[ShyTorque]

I was interested to find out why, when a club has such an experience available, why so few pilots want to try it.Probably because they are frightened of it. Due to the "aura" put in place around these so-called terribly difficult to fly aircraft.

About twenty five years ago I was offered a ride in a tail dragger, a Beagle Husky, by a private pilot with his own aircraft. He took off, then handed control to me. We flew around for a while (he wanted to take some photos) then he said it was time to go back and land. He told me I could land it, which I did. Due to a non-working intercom, I just got on with it. I three pointed it on the 400m grass runway.

He complimented me on the landing and asked me when I'd last landed a tail dragger. I told him the flight we'd just done was the first one I'd done. But I'm certainly no sky-god; I was instructing on military, nose wheel equipped SEPs at the time. Perhaps I just knew no better but I had been taught from a very early age that main wheels are for landing on and nose wheels are only for steering with after the landing is finished

[Crash one]

I was taught the same way. Also taught that landing in a crosswind with a steerable nosewheel and putting the nosewheel down with a boot full of rudder was a bad idea!

[Armchairflyer]

I was interested to find out why, when a club has such an experience available, why so few pilots want to try it. There is an aircraft available, for the same cost as the PA28 which requires a slightly different set of skills, can fly aerobatics and spin. Yet, only a few people feel the need to try it.Be careful what you wish for, it may be more than your favorite aircraft can handle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23NE8mushvc
Also, a PPL friend was/is in a similar situation: badly bitten by the tailwheel bug and delighted to have the opportunity to be one of very few to regularly fly a Cub. Then another not-so-regular user recently had a groundloop and scraped a wingtip (no real harm done though, apparently).

[Mav5r1k]

At the risk of sticking my head into the hornets nest I must agree with the original poster, as a relatively new pilot about (1 year/100hrs) I am already thoroughly bored of the standard club aircraft, they are simply dull to fly, to slow to take much further than a few hundred miles, a tail wheel at least takes work to fly.

(obviously before someone suggests it i'm most certainly not claiming to be anything above a distinctly average pilot)

[Pilot DAR]

Welcome Mav,

Generally, tailwheel aircraft offer a type of flying not so common for tricycle types. Sometimes it's speed, sometimes it's actually superior slow speed capability, or off airport, or alternate landing gear. But rarely is it more than one or two of these characteristics!

But, happily, every tailwheel aircraft will demand more of you as a pilot, and reward skillful flying with a greater sense of achievement, and simply fun!

[IFMU]

I'm a big fan of tailwheel airplanes. My son's second lesson this AM:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa72/Aerowerk/496DB6C8-FC87-42ED-BD90-B8468C493410.jpg (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/Aerowerk/media/496DB6C8-FC87-42ED-BD90-B8468C493410.jpg.html)

As I have matured I don't count myself as superior to nosedragger pilots. All flying is good.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It is a generational thing.

When I learned to fly there were only tail wheel airplanes to learn on so we had no idea they were so difficult to fly and thus they were not difficult.

By the way the PPL was a thirty hour minimum flying course then ...1953....a lot of us finished in the minimum thirty hours and went on to fly for decades with no problem.

However today's generation of flight instructors look on tail wheel airplanes as some kind of black magic machine and are afraid to fly them.

It is called " Ignorance "

[Flyingmac]

A quick squint at what I've flown over the last ten days.
PA28
PA32 260
PA32 300
Cessna 172
Cessna 182
Jodel
Eurostar
Super Cub
R44


Love 'em all.:)

[9 lives]

When I learned to fly there were only tail wheel airplanes to learn on

C'mon Chuck, the planes didn't have tailwheels back then, they had wooden skids! ;)

[IFMU]

Things have really gone downhill since they ditched the skids and put a wheel on the back. Pilot skill has generally degraded with the addition of the training wheel. We still have a few skid equipped aircraft here at C77- the way it should be.