Sport Pilot Talk

Warmi wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:I would prefer the tail dragger. Once you have plenty of experience in one, you understand the benefits.

Well, there are hardly any - if there were, every commercial aviation customer that actually uses their equipment for work , as opposed to fun, would be ordering them ..

There are benefits, I listed them and you just shrugged them off as not really benefits. In my circle of pilots I'm literally the *only* one flying tricycle, everybody else is flying a taildragger. We fly to a lot of grass strips, and I can only land at about 80% of the ones we like to go to, because I have a nosewheel. They can fit better tires for rougher surfaces, and have prop clearance on tall grass and to avoid debris going through the prop arc.

Nosewheel airplanes have one advantage: they are easier to land. That's all. That doesn't make them better, just easier.

MrMorden wrote:

Warmi wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:I would prefer the tail dragger. Once you have plenty of experience in one, you understand the benefits.

Well, there are hardly any - if there were, every commercial aviation customer that actually uses their equipment for work , as opposed to fun, would be ordering them ..

There are benefits, I listed them and you just shrugged them off as not really benefits. In my circle of pilots I'm literally the *only* one flying tricycle, everybody else is flying a taildragger. We fly to a lot of grass strips, and I can only land at about 80% of the ones we like to go to, because I have a nosewheel. They can fit better tires for rougher surfaces, and have prop clearance on tall grass and to avoid debris going through the prop arc.

Nosewheel airplanes have one advantage: they are easier to land. That's all. That doesn't make them better, just easier.

None of these are benefits specific to taildraggers. Just because your Flight Design was not designed for off road type of flying , it doesn’t mean you could not do that in a properly equipped tricycle. A Zenith 750 with large bush tires can land just as short and go everywhere a taildragger can go - I have seen countless videos of people doing just that.

And yes , being able to land a plane with less effort and safer is a huge advantage given that majority of accidents are related to landing - while at the same time being able to do just about everything else a taildraggers can do - it is not just my opinion but a fact reflected by insurance rates as well as commercial operators moving away from taildraggers to tricycles for just about every commercial application.

It is almost like discussing religion - people just seem incapable of admitting that “ yeah , taildraggers are outdated and offer no tangible benefits while being harder to land, harder to insure but they are fun and that’s why I fly them”- no , they have to invent all sorts of benefits , justifications, stuff like “ it will make you a better pilot “ , “ you will only understand the benefits if you fly them ...”, “ real pilots only fly taildraggers “ - etc etc

This is reminiscent of the arguments in the automotive community, about the relative merits of automatic transmission vs. stick shift. (You can guess where I stand about taildraggers, since I still drive a stick...)

Bottom line: drive and fly what you enjoy, and let others do the same.

Warmi wrote:

MrMorden wrote:

Warmi wrote:

None of these are benefits specific to taildraggers. Just because your Flight Design was not designed for off road type of flying , it doesn’t mean you could not do that in a properly equipped tricycle. A Zenith 750 with large bush tires can land just as short and go everywhere a taildragger can go - I have seen countless videos of people doing just that.

A nosewheel airplane's ground clearance and rough field capability is always limited to the size of tire you can put in the nose fork. you can't put 31" bush tires on a 750, the nose would be pointed at the ground and you'd *lose* clearance. You just can't get the kind of ground clearance you get with a tail wheel. Sure the 750 lands short, but that's only part of the country flying equation and is a function of the wing, not the gear. How many 750s do you see ferrying hunters in and out of camps in Alaska? 5? 1? Any at all?

There is no *best* configuration of airplane, only trade-offs. Saying that tailwheel configured airplanes are anachronistic or not as "good" as a nosewheel airplane just because of their handling characteristics is wrong-headed. You pick the best tool for the task.

OK -- we've now resurrected the timeless debate of conventional vs. tricycle gear. Is it time to go on to high-wing vs. low-wing?

dstclair wrote:OK -- we've now resurrected the timeless debate of conventional vs. tricycle gear. Is it time to go on to high-wing vs. low-wing?

I prefer high wing and low wing. I also prefer tricycle gear and conventional gear. To say one is good and one is not is just not correct. It's OK to like what you own, but that doesn't mean everything else is inferior.

Warmi wrote:My point is not that taildraggers are not fun , just that they are not very useful beyond the point of enjoying a challenge of flying one ...

Beg to differ with you.
Per capita, Alaska has more GA aircraft flying, than any other state.
That withstanding, of those aircraft, many are taildraggers, which are used commercially. Alaska is definitely bush country, and the preferred aircraft is either taildragger or seaplane.

I like both kinds of pie. Hot and cold.

I learned to fly in a tailwheel airplane, so I think it is normal. I really don't think they are harder to land as a whole. There are some nosewheel airplanes that are harder to land than others, and the same goes with tailwheel airplanes. I personally have witnessed just as many ground loops in nosewheel airplanes as taildraggers. As an instructor based on my experience I can teach someone to land a Piper Cub in less time than a Flight design CT.

As for insurance, I have insured both nosewheel and tailwheel airplanes commercially and as a private individual, and I really haven't seen a big difference in premium rates. The biggest rate factor is pilot experience.

3Dreaming wrote: As for insurance, I have insured both nosewheel and tailwheel airplanes commercially and as a private individual, and I really haven't seen a big difference in premium rates.

My experience has been different, Tom. My commercial policy on the SportStar has a $1M liability limit, $100k hull coverage, $1k in-motion deductible, covers my students for solo flight, and this year's premium was $5210. The same coverage for a Cub is $10k. (Obviously, if student pilots don't fly the Cub solo, it's a whole lot less.)

drseti wrote:

3Dreaming wrote: As for insurance, I have insured both nosewheel and tailwheel airplanes commercially and as a private individual, and I really haven't seen a big difference in premium rates.

My experience has been different, Tom. My commercial policy on the SportStar has a $1M liability limit, $100k hull coverage, $1k in-motion deductible, covers my students for solo flight, and this year's premium was $5210. The same coverage for a Cub is $10k. (Obviously, if student pilots don't fly the Cub solo, it's a whole lot less.)

I bought a Cub on April 1, 2006, and had it insured for instruction and rental. IIRC I was paying right around $2800 per year. When I replaced it with my first CT the rates a little more than doubled. Of course the CT had a higher hull value.
Right now I have a Taylorcraft on a personal policy for $505 per year with $13,000 hull value. I would have to get a quote, but I expect a Cessna 150 of the same value would be close in premium.

TimTaylor wrote:

dstclair wrote:OK -- we've now resurrected the timeless debate of conventional vs. tricycle gear. Is it time to go on to high-wing vs. low-wing?

I prefer high wing and low wing. I also prefer tricycle gear and conventional gear. To say one is good and one is not is just not correct. It's OK to like what you own, but that doesn't mean everything else is inferior.

It is not about everything else being inferior - I have no problem admitting that the plane I own serves no useful purpose beyond me just having fun in it ( which is actually very useful to me )

All I was saying that taildraggers are simply no longer the workhorse they used to be and are being more and more relegated to a role of niche application or just pure fun toys ...

Deleted duplicate.

drseti wrote:This is reminiscent of the arguments in the automotive community, about the relative merits of automatic transmission vs. stick shift. (You can guess where I stand about taildraggers, since I still drive a stick...)

Bottom line: drive and fly what you enjoy, and let others do the same.

Not surprisingly, I was considering making the analogy with stick vs. automatic.

Only one stick left in the Benson stable - our 2005 Element - but I’ve always leaned towards manual transmissions when available. Which is becoming increasingly rare. And if it was a choice between a nosewheel Bristell or that gorgeous taildragger, you can guess which one I’d choose!

Tricycle, tailwheel; high wing, low wing; auto or stick..

I prefer no rudder peddles so much easier to fly

joey4420 wrote: I prefer no rudder peddles so much easier to fly

True, Joey (except for slips - very difficult in your ercoupe)