Small wheel controversy!
DeltaV wrote:
You did? Everyone I knew at the time said that the Fearcracker was a complete and utter PoS!
Since we digressed briefly towards Tuncano/PC9 territory I always rather liked the BN Firecracker.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to own a Fournier RF3. I often successfully negotiated 50% discount on landing fees as it only had one wheel!
There is, of course, a saying... "There are good aeroplanes, and good test pilot school aeroplanes".
G
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
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
In addition, it has a stick and a throttle on the left hand side
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If tailwheels are so good, why don't fast jets have them?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually a proper explanation of why tailwheels are not favoured for jet aircraft here:-
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%201522.PDF
tailwheel no more needs the pilot to be a "skygod" than most other areas of aviation, just needs proper training!
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%201522.PDF
Tailwheels are very good indeed - for those skygods that can master them.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://cessna170.backcountrypilot.or...nd-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...
....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...
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!
What is it, actually? Lockheed U-2 or such? Really what today's world is waiting for!
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,635
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
Supermarine 510, 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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!