Tailwheel conversion
 

What can be the motivation to convert a perfectly well working light sport nose wheel aircraft into a taildragger?



Beecause it can be done and it's fun.:E

wsn

Ground...Loopy idea if you ask me.

Not to omit stick BACK as appropriate when on the deck & hold it there to continue/complete landing.

mike

That sounds important in a PA18* and similar but with this small little beast, stick back is just important to keep elevator from shaking. Rudder is pretty effective and CG is low. No, that vid was made because I got constant talks about "isn't it more difficult? ... more complex? ...but a nose wheel is far more ..." - that stuff.

wsn

*The old PA18 wisdom: The landing is finished when you switch off the engine with the stick to your belly in front of your hangar.

Tempted to ask what it is about a taildragger .....

The argument runs that being more difficult to land and handle on the ground becoming proficient in flying a tail dragger enhances your piloting skills... skills which you might not need if you didn't have to handle a tail dragger :confused:

They are simpler in construction of undercarriage and less draggy. Many but not all are short field aircraft, (not so a Pitts S2 or an Extra, perhaps) but that is perhaps more a function of wing than landing gear. Modern tricycle gear VLA types are equally short field.

Against them, they are much more of a handfull in cross winds and less stable in landing roll (generalising a bit here). There is nothing really logical in their favour as compared to modern nose wheel types. Nothing at all :rolleyes:

Sometimes you can argue yourself into an armchair. I shall just keep flying my Chipmunk (if we ever get the engine repaired) :ok:

A dream
 

Out in mine yesterday, with a lovely 5knot tailwind landing. Hope you get your engine fixed soon.:ok:

Im confident you're kidding...

But, for those who would take this statement seriously, go fly a nose wheel equipped ski or tundra tire plane, then the equivilent taildragger, and you'll have a much greater appreciation of the virtues of taildraggers.

I'd much rather take a taildragger into rough, or unknown ground, than a nose wheel aircraft.

"I shall just keep flying my Chipmunk (if we ever get the engine repaired)"

Need spares? There is one standing around near my place and the guy is nicely equiped. But talking about Chippies. If you walk towards one, compare that pic in your mind with a C172 and then you know why someone takes the burden to go that way. It just looks ... "more like an aircraft" in some minds. There are no pros and cons when deciding to go for it, really just the look and feel plus the fact that my budget isn't big enought to get a decent Chippie and maintain in in a flying condition ...

wsn

Chipmunk flying
 

Join a group,£350 per year and £100 per hour,I believe there is one such organisation in Norfolk;)

Aesthetics, efficiency, plus it forces you to land properly rather than wheelbarrowing it in (or, you could say a 3 pointer is a pleasure rather than a sin..) Besides, who cares about logic :O

But mainly, most *interesting* aeroplanes seem to have the wheel at the back. :ok:

A few weeks back, late afternoon Sun on the horizon, runway 24. I missed the strip by 20 yards left.
A bit bumpy but perfectly safe, if it had been a nosewheel I may have had a problem. Learned that the entire field is useable. (Must try harder to remember where the strip actually is!!)

Have a look at the RV6 video, Dave explains all the technical reasons for choosing a tail dragger.:ok:

YouTube - RV-6 and Vicki FullFlap.TV 5th June 09

Taxying your taildragger across the tufted turf, one's airscrew is usually well clear. Also my Dachshund has nothing to worry about.

However, when intending to depart, the tail rises and the ground clearance for the prop is probably about the same as the nosewheel aircraft, so it behooves you to chose your run with care.

Landing, of course, is fully held off, and 3 point. Beware of crosswind gusts.

How much extra do they charge you to land on the pavement?

-- IFMU

:ok::ok::ok:

Aesthetics - see Air-Britain : D-MESB and compare for yourself.
Efficiency - plus 6 kts in horizontal cruise or 12 ltrs consumption at 105 economic cruise. (129 Vmax).
Logic? Come on, most of us are married. We know what logics mean if it just comes from the right person, don't we?

wsn

Taildragger: An aeroplane with worms. Not my quote, just read it somewhere and the vision won't leave me now.

Just occurred to me that just like a wormy dog, there's the tendency to try to lick it's own bum. I fly both types, so put the daggers away.

Not a bad comparison. But once the dog gets his but into the air he can run. Now just imagine what a dog would do with his left front leg being non existant ...

Sometimes I look at these pros and cons discussions like looking at a red haired girl. Some people like it, some don't but all these different preferences produce the variety I appreciate when going to airfields and airshows. Somehow more interesting than distinguishing a fleet of 172s by color scheme and interior fabric.

wsn

Usually it is whatever she says it means :hmm:

redheads - feisty and likely to be trouble?
blondes - perfectly serviceable, but a bit unimaginative?

I can see the parallels :E

Are blondes easier to handle once you get them down?

:ok::ok::ok:

Got it. And who wants to fly something "unimaginative"?

wsn

Quite :ok:

So many places I could go with the blondes thing, but I think I'd better behave!