"Pull Early, Pull Often"

[RBK]

My MEL time is in a Lazair. I don’t remember for sure , but I think it was mainly nosewheel ( two of them) with a tail wheel backup. I got a couple of hours time in a tailwheel when I was deciding whether to build my RV with a nosewheel or tailwheel. Although I didn’t see why I couldn’t master a tailwheel, I decided to go with the nosewheel based on the advice of a high time tail wheel pilot who had built the tricycle, mainly due to resale value. To be honest, the RV is almost as fast with the nose wheel, loops and rolls the same, and spends very little time in taxi, takeoff, and landing so is it really an issue as long as I can stay on the centreline and not go into the weeds? The few times I have scared myself have had nothing to do with yaw control or landing gear configuration.

[Colonel]

I find it helpful to do an quick objective cost/benefit check.

A taildragger allows you to run a larger diameter prop, with increased ground clearance, and a slight theoretical reduction in drag compared to a nosewheel, from the smaller tailwheel.

If you’re only going to fly off long, paved runways with no obstacles at low density altitude, the above doesn’t matter much.

And if you don’t mind the reduced performance from the decreased thrust (smaller number on the VSI after takeoff) and increased drag (slower cruise) ….

In return for paying the cost of the above negatives, you get more docile and forgiving ground handling, which requires less skill and proficiency. I get that.

But aviation is many different things to different people.

While some people eagerly embrace the above, to me aviation isn’t about decreasing skill and proficiency.

I feel dirty when I do that.

Sometimes I will sit and watch airplanes at my home airport. It is much busier than any airport in Canada AFIAK so you get a pretty good-sized sample pretty quickly.

Parallel runways. Often three aircraft on final for each runway, two departing each runway, two holding and two taxiing in, separate freqs for each runway.

The lack of pilot skill in nosewheel aircraft is on proud display. All the nosedraggers approach much too fast, with the nose dug in low. They never use the first one thousand feet of pavement. Often they don’t touch down until at least halfway down the runway.

While this may be commonplace, no one can convince me that it is good.

I take the same approach to my ground transportation. I don’t own a car or truck. I ride motorcycles every day.

If decreased skill on a motorcycle is your objective, you will surely die in traffic. The left-turner will kill you. Generally at least two people try to kill me on my motorcycle every time I ride it. I presume they are allowed to, because their lack of skill is so commonplace.

But you will have to forgive my intense interest in skill in this case, because it keeps me out of a wheelchair or coffin.

Oddly, nearly all my friends are dead.

[Colonel]

I know skill development is unimportant to many, but it is very important to me.

Where I live, traffic is horrible and parking is impossible. But you can solve those 2 problems if you develop some skill:



YMMV but my life has been vastly improved by working hard and developing knowledge and skill at flying, motorcycling and writing software.

I know that’s very old fashioned and I’m ok with that.

[Squaretail]

I find it helpful to do an quick objective cost/benefit check.

A taildragger allows you to run a larger diameter prop, with increased ground clearance, and a slight theoretical reduction in drag compared to a nosewheel, from the smaller tailwheel.

If cost/benefit checks are your thing, then turning a nose dragger into a tail dragger is never worth it. Cost prohibitive in most cases. For example the conversion kit to turn my old 172 into a taildragger was worth as much as the airframe itself. Thankfully I didn't have to pay that, I got the benefit without having to shell out the money for the conversion. Incidentally, the Sportsman STOL was another cost half of the base airframe's worth. Lot of money sunk there, to turn an airplane into something it other than it was. And the old 59' Cessna was still actually the 170 airframe with appropriate structure (still had boxes for the forward placed gear - the first 172s were converted 170 airframes) so it wasn't a stretch engineering wise. IF it costs that kind of money, just go buy what you want, rather than trying to make what you want. If the 172 costs scale to a Cirrus - you'd be looking at a 1.5 mil airplane. And be stuck with the worst taildragger there would be.

But aviation is many different things to different people.

Yes it is. Meditate on that.

I feel dirty when I do that.

Why? You already said you don't feel dirty flying nose wheel MEL. I haven't found any twins that are any "harder" to fly than their single counterparts. The Navajo flies like a big Cherokee.

The lack of pilot skill in nosewheel aircraft is on proud display. All the nosedraggers approach much too fast, with the nose dug in low. They never use the first one thousand feet of pavement. Often they don’t touch down until at least halfway down the runway.

But I don't blame the planes. There are a legion of reasons why people suck at flying, and I doubt if they had taildraggers it would improve them. The taildragger only improves those who want to be good in the first place. I know lots of crappy tailwheel pilots, you just don't hear about them because if you got enough money, you can bend a lot of metal and the world puts up with it. People are bad at flying because a) they don't fly enough, b) They get poor instruction, c) They want poor instruction, d) They mistake technology for safety, e) They have poor prioritization, f) They're just plain stupid.... I could go on. They could have a multitude of problems in combination. I mean lots of pilots do shitty things which have nothing to do with the short instances of wheel contact. What part of landing long is the taildragger going to fix? Is it going to make them approach slower? I've seen enough black marks on runways and flipped taildraggers to know that it maybe only teaches that lesson in the most expensive way.

The thing is that I've discovered, is that a good pilot taught well won't have a problem converting to the tail dragger. My God, I have to live by that. A bad pilot is going to fuck up a nose dragger, a tail dragger is only going to hasten that as opposed to correct it.

The only reason you see more nose draggers behaving badly is because they make more of them., and generations of previous pilots showed a preference to buying them, so its not a new thing.

[David MacRay]

I could go on.

Please do. I’m interested in the complete list.

a) & e) apply to me for certain but I’m probably scoring 4 out of 6 so far.

[Squaretail]

That would miss the point though Dave. None of those things automatically make a person a bad pilot, they can still perform well in spite of them. They just factor a lot more than the airplane used.

And besides, the list is infinite, and I'm sure creative people can add more to it all the time.

[David MacRay]

I don’t know, five of those could probably be reversed/over come, but if enough f) is present…

[Colonel]

I doubt if they had taildraggers it would improve them

Not so sure about that. Flight instructors are forgiving but taildraggers are not, when landed badly on dry pavement. They will not tolerate a bad pilot.

I wish everyone could get their first 10 hours on a taildragger. I like the old ones, with buckets of adverse yaw. Even in flight they are more demanding.

Great trainers.

Nosewheel aircraft are horrible trainers. They tolerate a student with wretched skill deficiencies.

[Squaretail]

I doubt if they had taildraggers it would improve them

Not so sure about that. Flight instructors are forgiving but taildraggers are not, when landed badly on dry pavement. They will not tolerate a bad pilot.

That thought would imply that airplanes are living creatures. While a tail dragger maybe won't tolerate a bad pilot, it does not automatically confer skill. If a pilot has enough money, he can bend a lot of tail draggers. I think the record was one fellow who bragged to me he had wrecked ten airplanes in his lifetime. He professed to be a expert in Cessna tail draggers since he had crashed them in all sorts of ways.... I mean the BCATP used exclusively taildraggers, but they just had the luxury of washing out candidates and an unlimited supply of taildraggers. If you were a bad pilot and couldn't get the taildragger, you just didn't get to become a pilot, the plane didn't magically turn bad pilots into good ones. I know lots of guys who learned on taildraggers who I wouldn't let fly an airplane of mine, and found that out sharing a cockpit with them.

Nosewheel aircraft are horrible trainers. They tolerate a student with wretched skill deficiencies.

Again, its not the plane. Pilots accept skill deficiencies. Instructors do. This is what I've gleaned from my small experience.

I don’t know, five of those could probably be reversed/over come

Of course they can. People can always change. Most of them are cumulative and compounding though. Its possible that one might not fly often and still be a decent pilot. It is within the realm of possibility.

[Colonel]

imply that airplanes are living creatures

I think that anyone trying to stop a taildragger from destroying itself by spinning around and running off the side of the runway, could be forgiven for a bit of anthropomorphising :^)