I know that ALL tail-wheel aircraft CAN ground-loop. But, not all aircraft are created equal, so, some models must be less likely to ground-loop than others. If a pilot with little or no tail wheel experience wanted to get some instruction and then possibly purchase a tail-dragger for back-country use, which makes & models should he consider, and which ones should he shy away from until he gains more experience & training?

Very "experienced" pilots can ground loop anything when they let skill/judgement lapse.

Mastering any aircraft on long grass runways before heading to the backcountry is how you prevent ground loops.

Sorry I didn't give you a specific airframe. There isn't one.

As with most airplane comparisons, both the skill and technique of the pilot are hard to isolate variables. Rather than speak against some narrow geared but otherwise fine airplanes, I will compliment the designers of the widest geared and least squirrelly airplane I have flown. The Calls of Afton, Wyoming designed the best balanced airplane I ever directed the course of on the ground or in the air. I flew the side by side converted to single seat CallAir A-5 crop duster, the A-9 that looks like an ugly Pawnee, and the A-9A that had flaperons. They were the finest airplanes I know and wouldn't try to ground loop unless the pilot made slow static reactive rudder corrections.

I sprayed many years in the old days and don't know of nor have ever seen evidence of any having ground looped.

Nark wrote:Very "experienced" pilots can ground loop anything when they let skill/judgement lapse.

Mastering any aircraft on long grass runways before heading to the backcountry is how you prevent ground loops.

Sorry I didn't give you a specific airframe. There isn't one.

Short coupled or heavy tailed airplanes are more difficult to correct and could be considered more prone but a better description would be Less Forgiving or a smaller margin of correctable error.

Comparing a Citabria to a Cessna 170, for example. The Citabria feels bolted to the ground. An error of the same size would not be as correctable in the 170.
Same from a 170 to a 195. Your range of correctable deviation diminishes.
At the other end of the spectrum, a Pitts Special can swap ends before you realize it's starting to go. Your correctable margin of error is quite small.

A J3 Cub might be considered the most forgiving. But every airplane has a limit.

Interestingly, the old WarBirds were MUCH more forgiving when compared to the primary trainers. My grandfather once told me the T6 and Stearman were intentionally less forgiving to better teach students - making the warbirds an easier transition.

I think visibility has a large impact on ground loops. Airplanes with poor forward visibility in a landing attitude (Cessna 195, for example) seem to have worse reputations for looping.

Likewise, "short coupled" airplanes seem to suffer more. The larger the triangle made by the landing gear, the more inherent stability in ground handling.

Poor tire alignment will make any airplane more prone to ground loops. Having the main tires toed in will help to arrest ground loops, while tires toed out will exacerbate a ground loop once it starts. This is especially true on asphalt...the natural enemy of tail draggers.

A friend of mine owns a pristine N3N that he was able to buy because the previous owner (and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc.) couldn't control it on the ground. It was a monster, and every landing felt like the last you'd ever make. The guru of tire alignment showed up with grease plates and shims and measuring sticks, and a day later the airplane was an absolute pussy cat.

Regardless, any traditional gear airplane can be ground looped, and almost any pilot can be taught how to keep them straight. Trying to find one that's less likely to ground loop is not an intelligent way to shop for an airplane. It's just not that significant a part of an airplanes' characteristics. If it's that big of a concern, stick with a nose-wheel.

BluNosDav wrote:I know that ALL tail-wheel aircraft CAN ground-loop. But, not all aircraft are created equal, so, some models must be less likely to ground-loop than others. If a pilot with little or no tail wheel experience wanted to get some instruction and then possibly purchase a tail-dragger for back-country use, which makes & models should he consider, and which ones should he shy away from until he gains more experience & training?

Find an instruction situation with a Champ or Cub. They are as easy to fly as taildraggers get. Then find some instruction in a Pacer, get comfortable in that, and never fear any other taildragger ever again until you get a job flying a U-2.

Only ten hours in a Pitts, and it lands differently to a Super Cub, but directional control is good - correct landing attitude and holding that attitude accurately requires practice.

The Super Cub is a benign tail wheel aircraft but heavy booted pilots can send it to the weeds.

If you're really worried about ground loops, buy a tricycle gear airplane.

Easy solution.

MTV

This kind of question/concern seems to come up frequently, and I really don't think it should be a factor if you're serious about getting into the backcountry or even for a casual hundred dollar hamburger plane.

Some planes are less forgiving than others but none of that should be a reason to avoid purchasing a particular plane if it best fulfills your mission profile. Obviously certain airframes aren't straight or gear alignment that isn't spec but that should be caught in prebuy.

Just fly with a good instructor and learn how to fly the plane, don't let it fly you. If you don't feel that you can control your plane, you aren't ready for flying in the backcountry.

Some people are afraid of pacers and maules, but seriously?? Just control it, it's not hard. Citabrias are great and you'd have to seriously try to mess that up. Just get some training and go practice!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Without any other comments that have been covered thoroughly, I'll say a Citabria or champ are probably the best.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I always heard that the short coupled ones are more a handful. When I was getting to know draggers, I got time in a Super Cub, 180 and a Taylorcraft. Shortly there after I got to fly some Pacers and Clippers. I would say, yes they are a bit more touchy / squirrely, but nothing so crazy as to scare me. I think the Swift was the squirrlyiest, and looks like it's the most short coupled, and smallest rudder of them all. So there's something to the science behind that. I wouldn't shy away from owning / flying any of them though. I did turn down a Pitts once since it was a one seater and I'd never flown one, and had little tw time.

Overall I think Cubs and Stinsons are some of the most docile to control, but when I worked for CC, we did have some folks loop Carbon Cubs on takeoff with all that power...but that wasn't the planes fault.

Thanx Guys, for all of your replies! And please keep them coming, if anyone has more to add . . . . .

I did not intend to malign any particular makes & models, but, some trends cannot be ignored unless you have very deep pockets. Given a large enough sample of different planes & different pilots, insurance companies make up their rate tables. But, before calling Avemco and asking them about every tail-wheel airplane that is available on Trade-a-Plane, I hoped to get some general guidance from the experienced operators here on BCP.

Up here in AK, the most popular airplanes for the back-country are: many many PA-18's, occasionally a rebuilt PA-12 or PA-20/22, plus a lot of C-170/180/185's, some 7/8GCBC's, and a selection of other lesser known types. And although there are also a bunch of big tires bolted onto C-172/182/206's, it is the tail-draggers that seem to dominate the marketplace.

So far, it sounds like Citabrias and Cubs have the most recommendations.

Least likely to ground loop: Stinson 108-3. A long time ago I went from tri gear to tail wheel without any instruction. I don't think you can make a bad landing unless you are trying. Then again the guy that bought that plane from me rolled it up in a ball on landing with an instructor no less.

BluNosDav wrote:Thanx Guys, for all of your replies! And please keep them coming, if anyone has more to add . . . . .

I did not intend to malign any particular makes & models, but, some trends cannot be ignored unless you have very deep pockets. Given a large enough sample of different planes & different pilots, insurance companies make up their rate tables. But, before calling Avemco and asking them about every tail-wheel airplane that is available on Trade-a-Plane, I hoped to get some general guidance from the experienced operators here on BCP.

Up here in AK, the most popular airplanes for the back-country are: many many PA-18's, occasionally a rebuilt PA-12 or PA-20/22, plus a lot of C-170/180/185's, some 7/8GCBC's, and a selection of other lesser known types. And although there are also a bunch of big tires bolted onto C-172/182/206's, it is the tail-draggers that seem to dominate the marketplace.

So far, it sounds like Citabrias and Cubs have the most recommendations.

Insurance rates are an important consideration in regards to aircraft ownership, but they will not tell you anything about whether a given airplane is prone to ground looping.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the largest factor influencing insurance rates is how many claims there are as a percentage of the entire fleet of that make/model of airplane. Cessna's have lower insurance coverage, not because they handle better, but because so many of them were made that the number of insurance claims is relatively low in comparison to the number of aircraft manufactured. Husky manufactures relatively few airplanes, so every claim has a disproportional impact on the insurance risk.

That a Husky is three times as expensive to insure as a Cessna doesn't mean it's any harder to fly or any more likely to ground loop. Many would argue just the opposite, but you still pay a LOT more to insure a Husky or Maule than a Cessna of equal hull value.

This 170 is less prone to ground loop than other 170s

If after consideration of MTVs suggestion you still want a tailwheel, consider the many well maintained neither expensive nor pretty airplanes that are likely in your area. They can generally be insured for a bit more than purchase price.

Consideration of nose gear is not sissy, just smart, if it will accomplish the mission. Iterations of takeoff and landing, not hours, is important in competence and currency. Both too few and too many hours are problematic. Too few affects confidence and too many (more than 100 hours monthly) can result in fatigue, greater exposure, and overconfident lack of attention.

The tail-draggers that are least prone to ground looping are those that are rolling straight down the runway. "Too straight" is impossible.

If you are looking for a plane that will tolerate sloppy handling and will go straight when you hit the pavement sideways, as MTV said - get a tricycle gear plane.

While, I really appreciate the following advice;

mtv wrote:If you're really worried about ground loops, buy a tricycle gear airplane.

I'm not so much worried, as much as I'm conducting some long-term risk management. The same way that I do with short-term assessments before every flight, when I check the weather, terrain along the route, length of landing strips, etc. and consider available alternatives.

So, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that I have already decided to go with a tail-wheel airplane for my mission profiles.
Now, given that decision, which tail-wheel aircraft will minimize the inherent risks associated within the available tail-draggers?

Perhaps it would be helpful to describe why tailwheel airplanes ground loop easier.

In a nosedragger, the main gear is behind the center of mass. When flying in a direction, say at a runway, the inertia from the center of mass is going to try and keep the airplane flying in direction it's headed. If, on touchdown, the gear is not in line with the direction of the inertia, then the inertia will pull the gear straight since its leading in front of the main gear.

This causes a nose dragger to want to self correct on touchdown.

In a tail dragger, the main gear is in front of the center of mass. So if you touchdown sideways, then the gear track is going to disagree with the inertia, and if it disagrees a lot, and you don't do whatever is needed to bring the gear track in line with the inertia, then the center of mass is going to try and go around the main gear.

Put 300 lbs of dog food in a shopping cart, then roll down the aisle forwards and then backwards. You will find that backwards needs to be kept straight, and the moment it isn't, it's going to swap ends.

Now, all of that said, the solution is simply to keep the gear and the direction lined up. It's harder when there is a good cross wind, and the fact that the wing has some angle when it's on the ground doesn't help, but it can be done by flying the airplane all the way to the ground, then all of the way to the parking/hangar.

As with most things in life, there are pros/cons or risk management. If you don't think having a stronger main gear, more AOA on the ground, more prop clearance, the ability to run bush wheels/skis, etc is worth the difficulty or insurance, then go buy a nose dragger and be happy.

I think one's comfort and time in each specific aircraft make more of a difference than a specific type of plane being more prone to ground looping. With that said - I have found planes with narrow wheel bases like the Pitts/Christian Eagle harder to control on the ground roll. They require much more precise longitudinal control. Smaller tires seem less forgiving but this may have to do with some of the shock absorbing qualities of the larger tires than anything related to directional control. Loading the plane with a rearward cg also gives the tail more momentum compared with a forward cg making it more prone to ground looping.