How's it goin', folks? New to the forum, first post, so I hope it doesn't seem to elementary. I am currently working on a homebuilt for some not too hardcore backcountry flying. I have the option of a tail dragger or a trike with the aircraft, and I am looking for opinions on which is more suitable for some recreational backcountry flying.
I know with the trike gear I will get better forward visibility on taxi, and also have a relatively more stable platform on landing. I know a few designs such as the Zenair 701 uses a trike due to the angle of attack on takeoff. Besides the classic look, what backcountry advantages will the tailwheel have over the trike? Is this strictly a subjective decision? I appreciate the thoughts and info.

depends on how well the nose wheel is atached and prop clearance. I would build a taildragger hands down but there are many varibles to consider, I believe there was already a thread about this if you do a search you might be able to find it.

If you want to be subjective, tail-wheels will always be cooler. Plus it takes a little more piloting to be good in a tail-wheel. If you don't have your endorsement I highly recommend you getting it. Over all it will make you a better pilot, no matter what you fly.

I have flown both into the backcountry and most of the time it does not matter much.

But, one advantage for the taildragger is the ability to step on a brake and do a tight 180 on a narrow strip.

Yeah, do a search and you'll get 100 hits.

Here's my 2 cents. The best analogy I can think of...Push an wheelbarrow over a pot hole and wheelbarrow stops as your momentum tries to throw you over. Pull the wheelbarrow over a pot hole and it'll bounce right out.

Here's another plus for the taildragger. If you rip off the tailwheel then you can still takeoff and land. If the nosewheel is damaged then you're kinda screwed. And, when the nosegear gets damaged, you generally start bending a lot of other stuff like the firewall or engine mount.

My suggestion, evaluate what type of flying (landings) you plan on doing. If you are going to do off-airport stuff then go for a taildragger. If you plan on doing backcountry flying but landing on established strips then a tricycle should be just fine. It's easier to taxi, lands/takes off with a larger aoa, cheaper insurance, better over-the-nose visibility. Plus, the CH-701 just looks goofy as a taildragger.

You may find that there is a difference in insurance- I'm not sure how that market deals with homebuilts though.

Tailwheels are more often the choice for ski flying. Even if a trike performs well on skis, there is likely to be a greater selection/ availability for a T/W aircraft.

Mechanical simplicity- a Scott 3200 is a pretty bomb-proof 3rd wheel without much complexity. A nose wheel will involve more mechanical complexity, structural attachment considerations, and maybe require more labor for a homebuilt.

If you want to mount big tires on a T/W, there's no issue with modifying a nose fork.

You mention visibility on taxi- I doubt that this is a big deal on many modern homebuilts- more of a factor with WWII fighters, C-190s, Stearmans, dusters, etc... Perhaps you could locate a completed version of your project in a T/W configuration for evaluating the visibility.

Will you have an electrical system? If not, a T/W is easy to tie down for hand-propping.

Last, you might want to look around and compare resale values.


On further consideration- just go with a tail skid

Good luck on your project, and welcome to the forum.

-Denalipilot

crazyivan wrote:If the nosewheel is damaged then you're kinda screwed.

Only if you post pictures of the field repair on this site

I've never noticed much of a difference between insurance for experimentals vs. certified aircraft. Pilot time seems to be the biggest factor. As stated earlier, 99% of the strips the recreational backcountry pilot is likely to go into will handle nosewheels just fine. If you want to land on a gravel bar, I'd lean towards the tailwheel. I fall into the recreational category and I'm building a tailwheel plane. I actually feel more comfortable in them than nosewheels now.

denalipilot wrote:

crazyivan wrote:If the nosewheel is damaged then you're kinda screwed.

Only if you post pictures of the field repair on this site

Grit, spit, and a whole lot of duct tape!

pdknight wrote:

denalipilot wrote:

crazyivan wrote:If the nosewheel is damaged then you're kinda screwed.

Only if you post pictures of the field repair on this site

Grit, spit, and a whole lot of duct tape!

Actually, with an experimental, maybe you can post pictures on this site all you want. How's that work again?

-DP

Pretty hard to give you a meaningful opinion when you didn't tell us what your building.
Some homebuilts have a very strong nose gear and would be fine, others are just a berm away from total failure.

ah, yes, details. A rocky mountain wings ridge runner model 3. It comes with a nose wheel option from what I understand, and from the pics I saw, it looks pretty robust.

I don't think that nose gear looks real strong, and is that door really swinging
into the propeller arc? Looks like a nice looking taildragger, maybe shorten the door so when the wind blows it all the way forward it will not destroy your prop.
Dave

That thing looks pretty comfortable as a taildragger. I didn't know there was another folding wing experimental in the Nampa Caldwell area. That makes about 4 companies now building very similiar airplanes.

I just googled it. Sorta looks like a TriPacer on the nosedragger gear. I'd go with the tailwheel for sure.
Is that a true 2-place airplane, or sort of a single-place plus bags? The Ridgerunner line seems to be more ultralight-style single seaters, but the -4 model offers a jump seat option. Is it a true 2 seater, or sort of a single seater with baggage room (1 + 1)?

Eric

I've seen pictures of the same aircraft(that actual one) in the taildragger configuration. The forward swinging door is a custom setup, most have the cub-type door/window configuration. The website the pictures are on have quite a bit of misinformation regarding the model 3. The company's website, though it hasn't been updated in a while, has the correst specs on the model 3. The 3 has a larger rear seating area with the option of dual or single controls, where the model 2 had the single controls with the jumpseat configuration. It also had a larger fuel capacity than listed on that particular site, and so forth. The model 4, per the company site and info I have received from the company, is a side by side seating setup, uses a rotax 912, and has the general look of a kitfox.
I like the customer support from Rocky Mountain wings(Stace Shrader calls and asks about progress and makes a lot of follow-up calls) and everyone I have spoken to has a lot of good things to say about them, but the company doesn't have the most effective advertising.
I have decided to use the tail-dragger setup. Thanks for all of the quick replies and the information. Great forum!

denalipilot wrote:

crazyivan wrote:If the nosewheel is damaged then you're kinda screwed.

Only if you post pictures of the field repair on this site

Oh, *that's* cold!

Tail....

Nuthin better than tail.

A younger pilot asked me once when I was gassing up the Super Cub. "So how many hours you got in a tailwheel" Doing my best John Wayne I looked at him... paused for a moment, then said... "All of em"