Tricycle & tail draggers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tricycle & tail draggers
Just out of curiousity I have 2 questions regarding tricycle & tail draggers:
1. Why were aircraft initially (as in WW1 & WW2) era basically all tail draggers, but nowadays most are tricycle?
2. Why are most aerobatic aircraft today tend to be tail draggers?
1. Why were aircraft initially (as in WW1 & WW2) era basically all tail draggers, but nowadays most are tricycle?
2. Why are most aerobatic aircraft today tend to be tail draggers?
Moderator
Hmmm, Opinion only, not fact...
Taildragger is much more simple to manufacture, and the originals did not even have a wheel at the tail, just a piece of wood. The main landing gear was easy to build to be robust. No need for lots of nosewheel attachment structure in the nose (heavy and expensive, as it concentrates the loads into the airframe in a not so good way). With lots of training, and oversight, and less interest in the simplicity of the aircraft, it was just easier and cheaper to build and use taildraggers in the early days.
During WW2, some tricycles emerged, simply out of a design need for that arrangement, and it caught on with fewer runway excursions and noseovers. After the war, when light civil aviation caught on, tricycle was just easier for the masses to fly well, and insurance companies liked the fewer claims for landing accidents. The cost, weight, and complexity of the nose wheel became worth it.
Now we have reached the point where taildraggers are the rareity, and the pilots who can fly them well are equally rare. they still have their virtues though. It's kinda like standard transmission, How many drivers will grow up having never driven standard, and never understanding the benefits offered by that type of transmission? I certainly know many - but my wife and kids learned standard, and that's what they drive.
As for the aerobatic types, again, my opinion only. I expect that there is a desire to save weight and complexity, and, the general level of pilot skill flying those types is a notch higher, so the taildragger is manageable.
I have a taildragger amphibian, and I never take my eyes of it for a second going down the runway. What it lacks in runway grace, however, it more than makes up for, and exceeds tricycle, on the water.
A trained taildragger pilot will be a better pilot all the way around - they will have learned what the rudder is really for!
Taildragger is much more simple to manufacture, and the originals did not even have a wheel at the tail, just a piece of wood. The main landing gear was easy to build to be robust. No need for lots of nosewheel attachment structure in the nose (heavy and expensive, as it concentrates the loads into the airframe in a not so good way). With lots of training, and oversight, and less interest in the simplicity of the aircraft, it was just easier and cheaper to build and use taildraggers in the early days.
During WW2, some tricycles emerged, simply out of a design need for that arrangement, and it caught on with fewer runway excursions and noseovers. After the war, when light civil aviation caught on, tricycle was just easier for the masses to fly well, and insurance companies liked the fewer claims for landing accidents. The cost, weight, and complexity of the nose wheel became worth it.
Now we have reached the point where taildraggers are the rareity, and the pilots who can fly them well are equally rare. they still have their virtues though. It's kinda like standard transmission, How many drivers will grow up having never driven standard, and never understanding the benefits offered by that type of transmission? I certainly know many - but my wife and kids learned standard, and that's what they drive.
As for the aerobatic types, again, my opinion only. I expect that there is a desire to save weight and complexity, and, the general level of pilot skill flying those types is a notch higher, so the taildragger is manageable.
I have a taildragger amphibian, and I never take my eyes of it for a second going down the runway. What it lacks in runway grace, however, it more than makes up for, and exceeds tricycle, on the water.
A trained taildragger pilot will be a better pilot all the way around - they will have learned what the rudder is really for!
Also early runways were almost always unpaved. A taildragger has better prop clearance and the stronger main gear is better able to manage the bumps.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Dar, A question,
What would you guestimate the approximate added weight a trike has over a similar sized 4 seater TW? (e.g. a cessna 172 v a cessna 170) Generally what would be the approximate weight of the nose gear and all the ancillary equipment needed to have that wheel on the front?
What would you guestimate the approximate added weight a trike has over a similar sized 4 seater TW? (e.g. a cessna 172 v a cessna 170) Generally what would be the approximate weight of the nose gear and all the ancillary equipment needed to have that wheel on the front?
Moderator
Well, using the early 180 and 182 as a comparison: They both have near identical airframes and equipment, other than the nosewheel and its structural provisions. Most 180's of the 1955 to 1959 vintage seem to have empty weights ranging from 1525 to 1555 pounds. The 1957/58 182 has a stated empty weight of 1621 pounds, so 80 to 100 pounds difference would be my guess.
This seems a heavier difference than I would have expected, but I'm sure 50 pounds difference at least, and 5 to 10 MPH lesser cruise speed for the 182 all other things being equal.
I have seen several broken nosewheels, and dragged propellers in 182's. (guilty of a dragged 182 prop myself
) I have never seen a broken tailwheel in a 180/185, and only a damaged prop when it was nosed over.
But Cessna still makes the 172, and 182. I bet they'll never make the 180 or 185 again - their lawyers probably won't let them!
This seems a heavier difference than I would have expected, but I'm sure 50 pounds difference at least, and 5 to 10 MPH lesser cruise speed for the 182 all other things being equal.
I have seen several broken nosewheels, and dragged propellers in 182's. (guilty of a dragged 182 prop myself
) I have never seen a broken tailwheel in a 180/185, and only a damaged prop when it was nosed over.But Cessna still makes the 172, and 182. I bet they'll never make the 180 or 185 again - their lawyers probably won't let them!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lowtime PPL,s view on Trike v. TW
I recently got back into flying after several years away from it (all my previous flying had been in Warriors and on large tar runways). Due to relocating to rural Scotland and getting a piece of land to build my own strip i looked at a lot of different aircraft both trike and TW, and settled on the Maule primarly because of the tailwheel Maule's reputation for toughness and the prop clearance.
After completing the strip which has a few rolls and bumps in it, the first airplane after my own to land was a friends trike Maule., I closley obseved his nose gear and was amazed the travel it had and how well it handled the field, which made me regret my choice of a TW (with all ground loop risk/expensive insurance issues etc.) Until we got talking about an off field landing I had recently made due to the wind conditions at my home field. My friend listend to the story and said " yeah my plane could probably manage that type of landing fairly easily also". Which got me thinking, during my landing (based on the field being a reasonably smooth field of early barley with sprayer tram lines) I had no doubt whatsoever that I could land and my only concern was the length, not the condition, which allowed me to concentrate my priorities on other aspects of what to me was a tricky landing.
And I guess that is the difference for me as a novice, I have full confidence in the TW in that type of landing where I detected my friend in his trike was only somewhat confident which i assume would limit ones option when considering certain fields whether in a forced situation or not.
Bottom line I feel safer in a TW and it may just make me a better pilot to boot.
I recently got back into flying after several years away from it (all my previous flying had been in Warriors and on large tar runways). Due to relocating to rural Scotland and getting a piece of land to build my own strip i looked at a lot of different aircraft both trike and TW, and settled on the Maule primarly because of the tailwheel Maule's reputation for toughness and the prop clearance.
After completing the strip which has a few rolls and bumps in it, the first airplane after my own to land was a friends trike Maule., I closley obseved his nose gear and was amazed the travel it had and how well it handled the field, which made me regret my choice of a TW (with all ground loop risk/expensive insurance issues etc.) Until we got talking about an off field landing I had recently made due to the wind conditions at my home field. My friend listend to the story and said " yeah my plane could probably manage that type of landing fairly easily also". Which got me thinking, during my landing (based on the field being a reasonably smooth field of early barley with sprayer tram lines) I had no doubt whatsoever that I could land and my only concern was the length, not the condition, which allowed me to concentrate my priorities on other aspects of what to me was a tricky landing.
And I guess that is the difference for me as a novice, I have full confidence in the TW in that type of landing where I detected my friend in his trike was only somewhat confident which i assume would limit ones option when considering certain fields whether in a forced situation or not.
Bottom line I feel safer in a TW and it may just make me a better pilot to boot.
Also, jet taildraggers burned holes in runways so quickly went out of fashion. Perhaps that also drove commercial pilot training (military and civil) towards tricycle aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When almost all light trainers were tail wheel airplanes the time to solo and time to PPL completion was no different than today with nose wheel airplanes, except the time for the PPL was 30 hours v.s. 45 hours today.
Like many other pilots who learned to fly then I received my PPL in the 30 hour minimum required.
Oh......the airport I learned to fly on had two paved runways and a tower.
Like many other pilots who learned to fly then I received my PPL in the 30 hour minimum required.
Oh......the airport I learned to fly on had two paved runways and a tower.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Also, jet taildraggers burned holes in runways so quickly went out of fashion. "
Another problem with jets was no prop wash over the elevator to raise the tail before rotation. ME262 test pilots has to stamp the brakes to induce a nose down to get the tail up.
Nose wheels have better view taxiing
Tail daggers have a smaller turning circle. Good for agricultural aircraft. It's all horses for courses.
Another problem with jets was no prop wash over the elevator to raise the tail before rotation. ME262 test pilots has to stamp the brakes to induce a nose down to get the tail up.
Nose wheels have better view taxiing
Tail daggers have a smaller turning circle. Good for agricultural aircraft. It's all horses for courses.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In gliders there's also an aerodynamic issue. A centerwheel/tailwheel arrangement is conveniently located at the places where the airframe sits on the ground by itself: The airframe is thickest near the pilots bum, and that happens to be just ahead of the CofG. Compensate that with a (non-steerable) tailwheel at the back end and the wheels, even if not retractable, offer minimum drag since they're mostly contained within the fuselage. A nosewheel/centerwheel or tricycle arrangement would require the wheels to protrude from the fuselage quite a lot.
Of course gliders don't need to taxi on their own, so the tailwheel doesn't need to be steerable. Making things even simpler.
But that has a disadvantage too. Recently we were forced to land with a 2-3 knot tailwind. (Wind veered throughout the day and switching the whole field arrangement around, winch and everything, takes about an hour. As this was the end of the day anyway, we didn't bother.) That made things really interesting, and quite a few of us groundlooped a bit at the end of the landing run. With no directional control whatsoever (no steerable tailwheel and no airflow over the rudder due to the tailwind) this was inevitable. Fortunately the speeds at that stage were very low, none of the groundloops exceeded 90 degrees, and no damage was done. But it did give me an appreciation of the dangers of losing control in a tailwheel.
Of course gliders don't need to taxi on their own, so the tailwheel doesn't need to be steerable. Making things even simpler.
But that has a disadvantage too. Recently we were forced to land with a 2-3 knot tailwind. (Wind veered throughout the day and switching the whole field arrangement around, winch and everything, takes about an hour. As this was the end of the day anyway, we didn't bother.) That made things really interesting, and quite a few of us groundlooped a bit at the end of the landing run. With no directional control whatsoever (no steerable tailwheel and no airflow over the rudder due to the tailwind) this was inevitable. Fortunately the speeds at that stage were very low, none of the groundloops exceeded 90 degrees, and no damage was done. But it did give me an appreciation of the dangers of losing control in a tailwheel.
Last edited by BackPacker; 10th Jul 2012 at 09:50.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One problem with a nose wheel as Silvaire1 mentioned is prop-clearance, but it isn't just the length of the nose wheel that is affected. The main gear can be shorter on a tailwheel aeroplane because the fuselage is tilted backwards when on the ground raising the prop. This saves even more weight and serves to reduce drag. Another issue with a nose wheel is that a tail-strike can cause damage.
Surely the only real benefit to a nose wheel aeroplane is easier ground handling?
Surely the only real benefit to a nose wheel aeroplane is easier ground handling?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the only real benefit to a nose wheel aeroplane is easier ground handling?
Another slight advantage is that the aircraft has a level attitude on the ground. That gives a better view over the nose when taxiing, but also makes loading the aircraft easier. That last point is particularly important with WWII-era cargo aircraft like the DC3.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try filling a hangar with a mix of tail draggers and nose wheel aeroplanes. If your aeroplane is at the back and you have to move the others to get out, you will learn to love nosewheels. Try pushing a tail dragger backwards 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pushing a tail wheel backwards? why? they are to be pulled backward aren't they?
Above someone mentioned a tailwheel maule vs a nose gear maule. I understand (although I have not flown a nose gear maule) that the training wheel version can land with a higher cross-wind component than the tailwheel version.
I don't know if this is true for all tailwheel planes (C180 vs C182? 170 vs 172? Texas C150 vs C150, etc.) but I suspect it is.
When planes were first flown, as in WWI, they flew from a field, not a strip, so the plane was pointed into the wind (non-steerable tail skid), rather than always taking off in one direction (or the opposite direction). They had very short take-off and landing runs, so a square field suited them well. When the take-off/landing run got longer, it was hard to get a square long enough to point the plane into the wind, so the steerable tailwheel came into being.
Mentioned above, briefly, is, I think, the main reason that acrobatic planes tend to be tailwheel, and that is a 5-10 knot reduction in speed with a nose gear. In order to get that back, the gear has to retract, that's added complexity (and weight). A retract plane has a greater empty weight than a fixed gear. Adding nose gear and retract adds a couple hundred pounds. More weight = less lift/speed with the same power.
One more thing...
tailwheel planes look better.
Above someone mentioned a tailwheel maule vs a nose gear maule. I understand (although I have not flown a nose gear maule) that the training wheel version can land with a higher cross-wind component than the tailwheel version.
I don't know if this is true for all tailwheel planes (C180 vs C182? 170 vs 172? Texas C150 vs C150, etc.) but I suspect it is.
When planes were first flown, as in WWI, they flew from a field, not a strip, so the plane was pointed into the wind (non-steerable tail skid), rather than always taking off in one direction (or the opposite direction). They had very short take-off and landing runs, so a square field suited them well. When the take-off/landing run got longer, it was hard to get a square long enough to point the plane into the wind, so the steerable tailwheel came into being.
Mentioned above, briefly, is, I think, the main reason that acrobatic planes tend to be tailwheel, and that is a 5-10 knot reduction in speed with a nose gear. In order to get that back, the gear has to retract, that's added complexity (and weight). A retract plane has a greater empty weight than a fixed gear. Adding nose gear and retract adds a couple hundred pounds. More weight = less lift/speed with the same power.
One more thing...
tailwheel planes look better.
Moderator
As explained to me by Dave Thurston, well known flying boat designer, tailwheel is the preferred arrangement for a flying boat amphibian which is to be beached. If you are beaching a tricycle flying boat you will contact the ramp nosewheel first. If there is any wind or current, the aircraft will pivot around the nosewheel before the mains contact. You'll by pointed up the floatplane ramp at an angle, and possibly unable to taxi out (and probably not back in either). The taildragger flying boat will contact both main wheels at once, straighten you out, and you're on your way.
When I park the flying boat in the water, I put the main wheels down, run them up onto the bottom, and it holds the plane in place very well, while protecting the bottom from damage or wear.
It was mentioned about crosswind capability. Consider the distance between the fin and the contact point of the main wheels. Tail draggers are a greater fin to mains distance than the same aircraft as a tricycle. That means more leverage for the crosswind to pivot the aircraft around the mains. It would take more rudder to overcome this. I have certainly landed tricycle Cessnas in crosswinds I would never attempt in a taildragger of the similar Cessna, but it is very skill based, so others could fairly differ on that.
When I park the flying boat in the water, I put the main wheels down, run them up onto the bottom, and it holds the plane in place very well, while protecting the bottom from damage or wear.
It was mentioned about crosswind capability. Consider the distance between the fin and the contact point of the main wheels. Tail draggers are a greater fin to mains distance than the same aircraft as a tricycle. That means more leverage for the crosswind to pivot the aircraft around the mains. It would take more rudder to overcome this. I have certainly landed tricycle Cessnas in crosswinds I would never attempt in a taildragger of the similar Cessna, but it is very skill based, so others could fairly differ on that.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again just a wild guess, but in the beginning it would probably have been rather difficult to manufacture a viable nosewheel. I assume most early aircraft were made from wood; the mainwheels would be a frame that was braced, and a simple skid at the back. It would be rather impractical to put something like that at the front.
With the advent of metal airframes, much easier to arrange, but until there's a need, why not stick with what works?
With the advent of metal airframes, much easier to arrange, but until there's a need, why not stick with what works?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to a fly in on Saturday. The grass was very roughly mown with a small taxi way which necessitated some taxiing over rough grass. I can't help thinking that my Pioneer would have struggled, with a lot of force on the nosewheel on landing and take off and the small wheels possibly not coping with the rough grass at all. In the Chipmunk, no problem!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try filling a hangar with a mix of tail draggers and nose wheel aeroplanes. If your aeroplane is at the back and you have to move the others to get out, you will learn to love nosewheels. Try pushing a tail dragger backwards
Tailwheel aircraft with springs attaching the tailwheel to the rudder are as difficult at nosewheel aeroplanes to manhandle in the hangar.
One great advantage of flying tailwheel as far as inclucating good habits are concerned is that it does demand correct landing technique. You won't get away with poor speed control on the approach, or not holding off properly in the flare (for 3-point landings), and of course you'll discover what the rudder does! And think how much cheaper insurance would be without all those 'collapsed nosewheel' claims!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 10th Jul 2012 at 16:16.