I think NASA has answered this question quite well. They are getting rid of their man-rated nose wheel space plane and going back to a "taildragger"!

DonC wrote:

Coyote Ugly wrote:A nose wheel might be OK, if ya had to land going backwards...

Thought about that....would u have to use oppisite rudder

Is that what my old student pilot manual was talking about when they referenced the "area of reverse command"?

I learned to fly in a taildragger, and I love the classic looks and challenge of them. Heck, I'm building a taildragger for my next plane. But after a long cross country in a cramped cockpit, when I have to land in a gusty cross wind with stiff legs. I sure like that little wheel out front.

As for skis, The only ski flying I've done was in a tri gear ultralight and that worked fine in deep or packed snow. I've had one professional bush pilot tell me he prefered a tri gear 206 or Cherokee 6 for most work. On skis he said they were LESS prone to getting stuck since the nose ski helped keep the nose up and get it running up on top of deep snow. He also really like the nose draggers for beach landing due to the extra floatation if he got into any soft stuff. I haven't put skis on my 150 because I don't feel it has the wing area or horsepower to get out of deep snow regardless of the gear configuration.

Phil

Bear_Builder has answered my big question.

The tailwheel airplane is best for forcing pilots to use the rudder properly and learning wind management on the surface. As MTV says, in a strong crosswind we have to angle across or find something more into the wind. Operators of working airplanes that fly in the heat of day with whatever wind don't have the time or money to keep rebuilding or replacing airplanes unless the customer is willing to pay lots extra for the privilege of flying the less capable airplane. And yes MTV, the pilot makes the bigger difference. The design of the airplane is to fly rather than to roll on the ground, except for the nosewheel design which makes rolling on the ground less expensive. Regardless of gear arrangement, airplanes fly better than they roll on the ground.

Wow this thread came back from the dead.

Maybe I’ve been flying tailwheels too long, but I find them much more natural than trikes. Every time I get in a trike it just feels awkward trying to get it to roll straight.

I’m only a 360hr pilot, but 90% of my logged time is tailwheel.

Check my avatar. I don't think a nosewheel would have made it. That snow was once 12-14 inches deep. It subsequently went through multiple freeze thaw cycles and was crusty and compacted down to about 5-6 inches. 31s started digging in as the plane started slowing down.

Not antiquated - just different. It isn't all about the "mission". A trike could easily perform the sight-seeing and recreational camping mission I fly for. I just like the flexibility and challenge of flying a taildragger. I like playing with wheel landings. I like being able to reach the gas tank by standing on one of the main wheels, I like a really low baggage area for my dog to jump in. I would not consider buying a tricycle geared plane because it wouldn't be as fun for me, and fun is why I fly. Fun will never go out of style or be antiquated.

It still kind of pisses me off, that the most confident I ever felt in a aircraft of any kind, on a road landing to be specific, was my little tri geared Titan Tornado almostanultralightbutcloseenough. With a less then 20 ' span, and ( ) the tri gear, a one lane dirt road with fences on either side was no sweat. Too easy, like when I park my 15 speed, 2 position jake brake, 54,000 pound boom truck at the end of the day, and crawl in my Prius for the drive home, I love/hate it.

We used county roads spraying with slow airplanes that needed to work close. One of our pilots misjudged a bit and damaged both wings of a Pawnee.

Actually, years ago, a court case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, who sued, claiming the Super Cub was an inherently dangerous design, or words to that effect.....because of the tailwheel configuration. In an interview with a higher up in Cessna when they were restarting light a/c production, that person was asked if Cessna would put the 180/185 back in production. The response was no, and part of the reason was that court case.

And this was arguably the most ridiculous case ever heard in a court. I can only imagine that Piper assumed it was so ridiculous that no jury would find for the plaintiff.

MTV

In the 70s a guy filming with a big camera mounted in the front seat of a Super Cub was feuding with the FBO at Mid Valley south of Albuquerque. The FBO parked the fuel truck in the middle of the runway to prevent him from taking off. He ran smack into it and died. His heirs sued Piper for millions saying the design was unsafe and won.

contactflying wrote:In the 70s a guy filming with a big camera mounted in the front seat of a Super Cub was feuding with the FBO at Mid Valley south of Albuquerque. The FBO parked the fuel truck in the middle of the runway to prevent him from taking off. He ran smack into it and died. His heirs sued Piper for millions saying the design was unsafe and won.

Yes and no. That’s the incident, but pilot who was in back seat survived but paraplegic. Videographer was seated facing aft on front seat, with back removed. No harness. Videographer perished I believe.

Pilot sued the owner of the truck, who settled, and Piper, for building an inherently unsafe design, to wit: a tailwheel airplane that’s impossible to see forward from back seat........Videographer notwithstanding.

Pilot admitted at trial that he knew the truck was there, and the distance of remaining runway.

Oh, yeah, the Cub was towing a glider.

MTV

Your knogin hasn't been worked over as much as mine, MTV. I thought we were talking about the same one, but I had forgotten all the details. I still don't remember the videographer, only big camera, but the glider towing came back. When I forget things, I just fill in the blanks like in a good war story. I forget Google can save me, or give me someone else's addled memory. Anyway, I was in the area at the time.

Settled for an FBO at that time meant pull both pockets out and say,, "Take it all!"

contactflying wrote:Your knogin hasn't been worked over as much as mine, MTV. I thought we were talking about the same one, but I had forgotten all the details. I still don't remember the videographer, only big camera, but the glider towing came back. When I forget things, I just fill in the blanks like in a good war story. I forget Google can save me, or give me someone else's addled memory. Anyway, I was in the area at the time.

Settled for an FBO at that time meant pull both pockets out and say,, "Take it all!"

The settlement from the owner of the other half of the airstrip was secret, but Piper paid a very large settlement, well into the millions.

The truly unfortunate point was this suit, decided by a jury, set a precedent, and not a good one.

MTV

Coyote wrote:Check my avatar. I don't think a nosewheel would have made it. That snow was once 12-14 inches deep. It subsequently went through multiple freeze thaw cycles and was crusty and compacted down to about 5-6 inches. 31s started digging in as the plane started slowing down.

I have a customer that did rhat with his cub on 31s. I got to rebuild his wings and rudder... don't think a nosewheel would've faired better, but TWs aren't always safe either.

onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer wrote:Taildragger an "antiquated design"? So is it?

Yes, they are outdated...perfect for landing on outdated landing strips!

CFOT wrote:

onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer wrote:Taildragger an "antiquated design"? So is it?

Yes, they are outdated...perfect for landing on outdated landing strips!

And being flown by outdated pilots

daedaluscan wrote:

CFOT wrote:

onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer wrote:Taildragger an "antiquated design"? So is it?

Yes, they are outdated...perfect for landing on outdated landing strips!

And being flown by outdated pilots

I "resemble" that comment, thanks

daedaluscan wrote:

CFOT wrote:

onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer wrote:Taildragger an "antiquated design"? So is it?

Yes, they are outdated...perfect for landing on outdated landing strips!

And being flown by outdated pilots

At least you didn't say "antique"... (Though my wife insists that word is pronounced "and-creak" when it comes to my body...)