What are your thoughts on running a skid instead of a TW? I noticed "Lil Cub" has a skid and the talk about running "unchained" got me thinking, if you are going to run with no TW steering then why run a TW at all? This probly seems silly to most everyone but if the goal is a light as possible plane to play in the dirt with then maybe it makes some sense.

Ran a quick calculation and figure that removing the TW on a Bearhawk would move the empty weight almost 2 inches forward. That could help a lot on a O-360 powered plane. I've also been putting together a list of mods to do to the Luscombe in the event that it doesn't sell and I decide to take it off the market. Losing 8 pounds would be significant.

HAHA. Nice Z

If you think a small tail wheel kicks up rocks, what do you think a skid will do? I think the engineers answered this question long about WW I

akavidflyer wrote:If you think a small tail wheel kicks up rocks, what do you think a skid will do? I think the engineers answered this question long about WW I

Who cares about the tail kicking up rocks? I know my experience is not exactly extensive but I've never dinged the plane from rocks kicked up by the TW. On a fabric plane wouldn't it be even less of a issue? I imagine the engineers came up with a steerable TW as a way to get some steering because brakes back around WW1 either didn't exist or were almost worthless. If your running unchained then that is a moot point.

The history I've read on this says that tail wheels, instead of skids, didn't come into use until hard surface runways started to become common. Apparently a skid has a lot of advantages on a turf runway, but gives absolutely no control at all on a paved runway. I think it was on a Pietnpol web site that I saw good discussion on this topic a few years ago.

Phil

whee wrote:

akavidflyer wrote:If you think a small tail wheel kicks up rocks, what do you think a skid will do? I think the engineers answered this question long about WW I

Who cares about the tail kicking up rocks? I know my experience is not exactly extensive but I've never dinged the plane from rocks kicked up by the TW. On a fabric plane wouldn't it be even less of a issue? I imagine the engineers came up with a steerable TW as a way to get some steering because brakes back around WW1 either didn't exist or were almost worthless. If your running unchained then that is a moot point.

Put a skid on, go fly off a gravel bar and take video, then get back to us... even if the tail wheel is unchained it will still roll, not dig ditches. For that matter, go drag a stick through gravel. Does the spray off the stick only go to the back, or does it go to the sides and even throw some forwards? I dont think your airframe is going to like you very much either if you ever screw up and get that tail just a tad too low going too fast. If you dont want peoples opinions, dont ask for them.

I apologize avidflyer, I didn't mean to offend you. I guess I answered in the same tone I felt your first post was delivered; I should not have done that.

I honestly don't think having a skid will cause damage from flinging rocks because it sits so far back but I agree that rocks will spray out to the side and even forward. Thinking about it, during takeoff is when this may be a problem.

Here is one of the drawings for the Luscombe skid.


Looks like it just attaches in place of a TW. Might have to try and locate a drawing of the skid itself and make one so I can give it a try.

akavidflyer wrote:

whee wrote:

akavidflyer wrote:If you think a small tail wheel kicks up rocks, what do you think a skid will do? I think the engineers answered this question long about WW I

Who cares about the tail kicking up rocks? I know my experience is not exactly extensive but I've never dinged the plane from rocks kicked up by the TW. On a fabric plane wouldn't it be even less of a issue? I imagine the engineers came up with a steerable TW as a way to get some steering because brakes back around WW1 either didn't exist or were almost worthless. If your running unchained then that is a moot point.

Put a skid on, go fly off a gravel bar and take video, then get back to us... even if the tail wheel is unchained it will still roll, not dig ditches. For that matter, go drag a stick through gravel. Does the spray off the stick only go to the back, or does it go to the sides and even throw some forwards? I dont think your airframe is going to like you very much either if you ever screw up and get that tail just a tad too low going too fast. If you dont want peoples opinions, dont ask for them.

Try that with a small tail wheel like a Scott 2000. Makes for a great brake.

OK, time for a dumb comment for sure...ya know, i realize that TW airplanes are cool, for sure. but then, i think just about all airplanes are cool, regardless of where that 3rd wheel is located...and i dont think that either one can much outdo the other in the right hands...so, i guess i say do what works for u, and try to not give a rip what everybody else might think. having been in mostly cessna trikes, 182 and up, i find they fit my missions the best. ultimately i would dig having both...!

Maybe someone could trial a skid on a nose wheel too? See which one works out better.

I've often wondered if a combination of the two wouldn't be worthwhile. Wouldn't save on weight at all but... I was wondering if a skid mounted in front of the tailwheel, say on the tailwheel spring, would allow the tailwheel to slid up and over larger rocks or other debris? Just something sturdy angling down and back right in front of the tailwheel.