Small wheel controversy!
 

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.wordp...n-of-worms.jpg

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

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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:)

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

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........

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Most aeroplanes have some way of crashing!

G

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

Any chance of having the subject corrected to: controversy?

Just a thought!

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

That could be considered a controvosial move.:=

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!

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.)

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!

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!

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!

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

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!

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. :)

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!

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.

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

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