I had a recent experience that I thought might be of interest to this topic and for me, helped confirm my decision to fly a taildragger.

I have a 59 180 with 8.50 x 6s and a large tailwheel. I was returning from Colorado to New Mexico. It was one of those beautiful days that makes you remember why you fly. The last part of my trip brings me over Mount Taylor and I picked up quite a bit of rough air. Nothing too exteme, but it shook the old bird a bit. Still everything going well and then it happened. The engine just quit (later found out that my ignition switch just gave out). I had a little elevation, but I had about 60 seconds to make a decision on where to go. The sun was setting and the light was bad. At that point, I just had to pick the best spot possible and hope for the best.

Well, the best spot had two foot mounds of sand and sage brush that was three feet high. I was VERY lucky and landed without indicident. The next morning we towed the bird to a flatter spot and I flew it out.

I don't mind telling you that I was thinking God above after landing that I was in a big wheeled 180 when I came down. I don't know how a nose wheel would have faired, but if I had my choice, I would have much rather had the plane I was in.

Regards, Larry

I would have to honestly say yes, the tail wheel is an antiquated design considering the capability of some of today's nose wheel airplanes. That doesn't mean that tail wheels don't still have a nitch to fill in the aviation world. Like said above, if nobody bought them they would quit making them.

For me it just doesn't seem honorable to have the airplane sitting still with its nose so close to the ground. We have ingrained perceptions of how things should be that are in effect impossible to change.

Consider the rudder pedals for example:
"The airplane needs no rudder pedals. It should have no rudder pedals. In all probability it will have no ruder pedals 10 years hence." Quote from "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche, published 1944. He goes on to counter each argument that can be brought up for needing the pedals.

I don't have the stats to prove it but I would suggest there are more new tail wheel airplanes comming of the assembly line today than there were 20 years ago.

GroundLooper wrote:

mtv wrote:Once,

In my opinion, OTHER than ski flying, there really isn't much that a good trigear airplane can't do that a tailwheel airplane can.

MTV

Someone pointed out to me a while back, possibly even MTV, that tri-gear skis do exist. They seem about as rare as hens teeth and tough to find first person accounts of how well they work.

Either
1. They suck.
or
2. They just haven't caught on yet.

Craig

They do exist. They have their place i.e. the few places where they don't suck.

Hudson Air has a 206 on skis that they use to access packed glacier strips, for example. But guess what kind of aircraft pack the strips for them?

Why are tailwheel aircraft of an antiquated design? Do you think the nosewheel is antiquated as well? Come on guys, do they really have you guys beleiving a very proficient pilot isnt safe in a tailwheel? I have no more concern landing a tailwheel than landing a nosewheel. I think if i beleived that i would quit flying them. I am not saying i would not question my competence in a new plane to me or under adverse conditions. I also beleive a tailwheel pilot has to be more current in practice, but when those conditions are met they are as safe as a proficient nosewheel pilot. I beleive nosewheels were brought to ga by aircraft marketers to make the average joe beleive they were as easy as driving a car. Probably if all aircraft were tailwheel types the pilots that dont really get it, would not be flying. I kinda think tailwheels are much safer in lots of situations. Are the pilots getting that bad, that we all need nosewheels. Lots more drag as well. Say it aint so. Not from you people too ?.

Well, I do not know it they are antiquated or not, however, with my ragbag I like having a "roll cage" around me.

When I took my priivate pilot training lo these many years ago, my instructers followed the line of the company owner, a man named Stone, and we landed the Piper tomahawk on the mains only.

If you let the nose down before you were at walking speed you would get your ass chewed and on one of the planes you would get real bad shimmy.

I watched a pilot from 40 mile air stand on the brakes on a 206, pull the yoke back until the nose wheel came off the ground and then charged down the strip without ever touching the nose wheel again.

Like many have said, most any plane can do way more than the loose nut behind the wheel/yoke/stick can handle.

Having said all of that I VASTLY prefer a tail dragger in all aspects of flight including crosswinds

I'm a fairly low time pilot who's too poor to bend things. I fly an overweight, underpowered Champ. I've yet to see a nosewheel in any of the places I go. Come on up and give it a whirl - I'll buy the beer.

In my VERY limited experience, nosewheels are not very amusing on crooked (or round) strips, or anything that requires a lot of precision. An airplane that really wants to go straight is NOT always a good thing! I've never seen one in anything approaching rough or rocky, and I have some guesses about why.

Maybe off-airport pilots are the antiquated design.

There's no big trick to putting skis on a tri-gear airplane. A fair number of them have skis on the TC. They suck. Actually, they're fabulous if you keep yourself to straight and packed. They're not very maneuverable at mid-speeds, and deep snow is not even a little bit of fun once the nose-ski takes a dive.

Good post Dusty. I also think it may very well be the only thing antiquated is the teaching of the new pilots ( did I say the new pilots are pilots , new video game drivers ). Tail wheels are for the real pilots!!

A REAL airplane has a ROUND engine with the training wheel in the rear.
At least my airplane sits on it's rear.

Dustymc wrote:I'm a fairly low time pilot who's too poor to bend things. I fly an overweight, underpowered Champ. I've yet to see a nosewheel in any of the places I go. Come on up and give it a whirl - I'll buy the beer.

In my VERY limited experience, nosewheels are not very amusing on crooked (or round) strips, or anything that requires a lot of precision. An airplane that really wants to go straight is NOT always a good thing! I've never seen one in anything approaching rough or rocky, and I have some guesses about why.

Maybe off-airport pilots are the antiquated design.

There's no big trick to putting skis on a tri-gear airplane. A fair number of them have skis on the TC. They suck. Actually, they're fabulous if you keep yourself to straight and packed. They're not very maneuverable at mid-speeds, and deep snow is not even a little bit of fun once the nose-ski takes a dive.

Found this old post Just had to answer
Dusty wish I was still in AK would love to come up and give it a whirl Forget the beer, bring the title to your plane.....

shorton wrote:I watched a pilot from 40 mile air stand on the brakes on a 206, pull the yoke back until the nose wheel came off the ground and then charged down the strip without ever touching the nose wheel again.

This is probably because he had three 55 gallon drums of avgas in the back. I have seen the nosewheels of their 206's off the ground when they were stationary! Seriously, 40 Mile is the best!

You can load a 206 and certainly a 207 LEGALLY where without a pilot in the front seat, the airplane will rest on its tail. So, it's no trick to get the nosewheel off quick on takeoff. The trick is to climb aboard once it's propped up on its tail.

40 Mile some years ago sold their last 185 to the government. At that time, they were using only 206's and going in and out of some really rough strips with them. There are a lot of merits to the 206 that makes it a much better load hauler than a 185, not the least of which is the cargo door. I think 4MA now has a 185 again, but not sure.

But, back to the point of this thread....it always cracks me up when folks talk about that "last 5%" of the plane's capability. Not many, if ANY pilots work in that last 5% of an AIRPLANE's capability, ever. And, those who do on occasion, wreck airplanes pretty regularly. Watch someone who's working an airplane really hard sometime, and chat with them about what they are doing. I think you'll find that even the best of the best have a pretty serious margin that they keep in their pockets for the day when a gust of wind interferes, etc.

The limiting factor on most airplanes in the backcountry is the pilot not the plane.

As to landing nosewheel airplanes in rough spots, the right airplane will go places a lot of tailwheel pilots would fear to tread. As Don C noted....let's get out there and see what they'll do.

BUT....I guarantee that a mediocre helicopter pilot can land in a lot of places where the Ace of the Base couldn't land in a 206. So what? You need to keep the airplanes comparable in their basic size and load carrying capability. It makes little sense to compare a 206 to a Super Cub, for example, though I'll tell you that a pilot who's handy with a 206 will go a LOT of places that a lot of big city Super Cub owners with huge tires would fear to tread.

It's the pilot, folks.

As to tri-gear airplanes on skis....they are out there. Properly loaded and rigged, they will actually turn around tighter than most tailwheel designs. Problem is, you always have to have some serious weight back aft to help you lever the nose ski off the snow to turn. That can be problematic, for certain. Then again, I've been PLENTY stuck in several flavors of tailwheel airplane on skis. Deep snow doesn't discriminate.

Crosswinds--yeah, I'd take the bet on a day when the wind is howling, and put a 185 up against a 206 in a direct crosswind. That's about the time that I would be finding somewhere I could point that 185 into the wind, land across the runway, on a taxiway, or.... The 206, the Lance, etc.....piece of cake.

It's the pilot, folks.....

MTV

I have a very good friend who's a single plane 135 operator in Alaska. I have flown hundreds of hours with him in everything from Cubs to Beavers. For the last six years he's owned a 206. It has the big nose gear and 33" Mickey Thompson Racing Slicks on the mains. He uses it everywhere from the Alaska Peninsula to the Brooks Range. Moose, Bears, Caribou and yes, sheep hunts with it. You would have to see it to believe where he can land that airplane! After 18000 hrs and all of it in Alaska and 90% of that time is off airport, "guide" type flying in every tail dragger type airplane known to Alaska, he's convinced he's flying the best machine for the job. For the reasons MTV said; The 206 is a load hauling machine. With that cargo door, you can load them faster and get more in then a 185. At the end of the day, he's been more places, hauled more gear and moved more hunters then you could ever dream of doing in a 180/185.

GroundLooper wrote:Someone pointed out to me a while back, possibly even MTV, that tri-gear skis do exist. They seem about as rare as hens teeth and tough to find first person accounts of how well they work.
Either
1. They suck.
or
2. They just haven't caught on yet.
Craig

I don't know about the performance, but here's a Savannah from Norway with skis. The nose gear has positive connection to the rudder pedals, so maybe steering isn't too bad. Haven't heard any discussion. tom

I have a set for a C172 if anyone is interested? No paper work tho.

It isn't having the nose gear connected to the pedals that makes a tri gear airplane on skis maneuverable. It's being able to get that nose gear up out of the snow when you want to turn. Same goes for a taildragger, though. But, to get the taildragger's tail up out of the snow to turn around, you have to blast power, and shove that yoke/stick all the way forward. About the time you hit the aft limit cables, the toes of your skis start digging in. This whole process requires a fine touch, unless of course you're flying a totally empty plane. That isn't always going to be the case.

The nosewheel airplane on skis, on the other hand, with a bit of weight aft (and you learn to load them aft on skis) will turn pretty nicely, by powering up and yarding back on the yoke to pick up the nose. Now, full rudder will pivot the plane pretty nicely. In fact, so nicely that you have to be careful that you don't torque your axles.

I have to laugh when I hear people say that tricycle gear airplanes don't operate off airport. The aforementioned 40 MIle Air takes their airplanes into places that would scare most folks.

I took a 206 into a place where they'd been working a 185, and wrecked it. That spot was a piece of cake with the 206 and Gar Aero tires all round. It was a beast of a spot for a 185. And, you didn't have to break your back unloading that 185. This was a place where the smallest rocks were pineapple size.

Bring that Champ down to 4MA and ask em to show you some of their strips....

MTV

A nose wheel might be OK, if ya had to land going backwards...

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

mtv wrote: It's the pilot, folks..... MTV

So true.

It's like watching 4x4 automatic vehicles run off the road in snow and ice while others do just fine in some old rustbucket beater with one good tire.