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

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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

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

(not ...)

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

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!

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.

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...

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

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!

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.

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!

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!