Tailwheel/nosewheel Question

[AKKen07]

I learned to fly in a Citab, and have done some instruction in them and a Pacer. With that limited experience in the new tailwheel pilot category I definitely recommend the Citabria. Mark sold me on the BH by comparing its handling to a Citabria (“but sportier”). Frankly I think they are great for everything any 2 person plane could be - except carrying much. They don’t carry much at all. The Pacer would be more of a trial by fire - going from one to the other I was amazed at the difference, but it would force you to get good fast, and if you want a 4 place BH, the side-by-side seating would be nice to transition.

[nichzimmerman]

I was going to use the same points to draw a different conclusion. My first airplane was a Pacer and I feel everything I have flown since then has been easier. I personally prefer it that way, vs knowing that my endorsement was given in an easier airplane. Plus, Pacers are relatively cheap to buy/maintain and are great for carrying stuff relatively fast. That said, a Citabria is more fun to fly to me. All these are are my opinions and worth every penny you spent on them!

[Gerd Mannsperger]

Here is what I did yesterday with a Nose wheel aircraft.

Now some will go on about this is what they call an airport

I see it as my job to find the safest best gravel bar and the big wheels are mainly to help if I miss judge and the bar is softer than expected -- sometimes only softer bars are above water.

Remember we usually land close to gross weight so my customers get what they pay for. We are always heavy.

One benefit of the Nose wheel aircraft is that with a 8.50 on the nose and 26 on the mains it has way more flotation than even a baby bush wheel on the tail the downside is if it does dig in you

usually have damage. If the tailwheel digs in its not a big deal just stop there and unload.

A certified BH5 would be just what I need unfortunately that will never happen.

I included a few pics for inspiration to get flying.

[predragvasic]

I agree, electric aircraft are making progress at a much faster rate than aviation did in its early years.

It is nice to see an experienced professional pilot show genuine excitement in anticipation of the arrival of the mainstream electric propulsion for airplanes. Over on the Homebuilt Airplanes forum, there is a discussion about this under the title “Why battery-powered aircraft will never have significant range”, and the tone is overwhelmingly dismissive (much in sync with the title). I’m definitely with you on this. There is no reason to believe battery technology development would suddenly slow or stop. And if it does continue at this pace, we’ll have very feasible solutions in 20-25 years. For those finishing their Bearhawks now, it may be easier building a new(er) design optimised for battery propulsion (and selling the old Bearhawk), but I’m sure there will be many who will adapt their current build and even replace/retrofit an existing ICE build.

I also think there is probably a reasonable demographic of potential sales that sit quietly in the shadows wishing for a nose wheel design but who don’t dare mention it for fear of offending anyone - effectively creating a form of survivorship bias in the posted comments.

Yes, definitely. The only thing that has me thinking about Bede BD-4 rather than Bearhawk is the tri-gear (although the cantilever strut-less wing is a very nice feature). I may be the only one here to say this (while looking at all the others readying their tar and feathers), but to me, tail wheel airplanes look ancient (or, at best, “retro”), tri-gears look cool and modern. This perception keeps getting reinforced with every new aircraft design. From Cirrus to Pipistrel to Sling and everything in between, the cool, sleek new designs are all tri-gear. The only new taildraggers we see are the ones designed to specifically appeal to back country and bush fliers.

Bearhawk is a truly great design. Unfortunately, Bob has very clearly stated that he has no interest in tri-gear. So, if it is ever to happen, it would need to be done by a builder with extensive knowledge and experience in the field. And even then, the modification would need to be solidly documented (and, hopefully, ultimately receive Bob’s blessing).

Im not an aerospace engineer, but seeing so many designs out there that offer both options to builders (tail or nose wheel, including that BD-4), I can’t imagine this modification would require profound structural changes to the cabin cage.

Oh, and, by the way, Neville, I like your new seats. The orange trim on the grey looks really great and it is quite nice to see your project moving right along. Now that the cooler weather (and shorter daylight) is arriving in your hemisphere, I wonder if it will mean more time or less time to build…

[JimParker256]

OK - I have to admit that in 99% of the cases, I think tailwheel airplanes just look better... And when I bought my RANS S-6, I was originally looking at tailwheel versions. But after looking carefully at the aluminum aft fuselage structure (which is bolted to the chromoly cage that surrounds the cabin), I decided I would really rather have the nosewheel version. On the RANS S-6, the nose gear is welded in as part of the steel tube cabin structure "cage," versus being bolted onto the firewall as you see in so many spam cans. As a result, the nose gear seems to be pretty sturdy – yet still with the limitations of a nose gear when it comes to holes in the runway, big rocks, etc... Between the two options (the tailwheel bolted to an riveted aluminum riveted structure OR the nosewheel attachments welded into the chromoly steel cage), the nosewheel seemed like the better option for me and the type of flying I do. (While I do plan to fly into backcountry strips, I'm not planning to fly this airplane into places with big rocks or soft, mushy sand...)

I believe that a properly engineered nosewheel design can be every bit as rugged as a tailwheel, and I've yet to see a better nosewheel design in an LSA-type than what Randy Schlitter did for the RANS S-6. For another well-engineered example (much "higher-end" product), look no farther than the Carbon Cub NSX... Though I don't really like the esthetics of that design, pretty much everyone who has flown that plane absolutely raves about it... And THAT one is definitely designed to go anywhere a tailwheel plane would go.

[schu]

I believe that a properly engineered nosewheel design can be every bit as rugged as a tailwheel, and I've yet to see a better nosewheel design in an LSA-type than what Randy Schlitter did for the RANS S-6. For another well-engineered example (much "higher-end" product), look no farther than the Carbon Cub NSX... Though I don't really like the esthetics of that design, pretty much everyone who has flown that plane absolutely raves about it...

When you can put a 35" tire inflated to 3psi on the front of a nosewheel airplane, then I'll believe you, until then, you simply won't get the ability to bounce off of an unseen stump without damage like you can with 35's and strong gear.

And THAT one is definitely designed to go anywhere a tailwheel plane would go.

Except skis, or here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjQwvqrvZQ

Now, I'm not saying that reasonable people do this, but what I am saying is that when you screw up and hit a huge rock/stump, that gear will soak it up and you can fly home, while nothing with a nosegear will survive.

[zkelley2]

When you can put a 35" tire inflated to 3psi on the front of a nosewheel airplane, then I'll believe you, until then, you simply won't get the ability to bounce off of an unseen stump without damage like you can with 35's and strong gear.



Except skis, or here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjQwvqrvZQ

Now, I'm not saying that reasonable people do this, but what I am saying is that when you screw up and hit a huge rock/stump, that gear will soak it up and you can fly home, while nothing with a nosegear will survive.

Ya, I'd love to see if Carbon cub would bring a nosewheel up and take it places the other cubs go when a cub on 35s is actually required. It'd be on it's prop in minutes.

That said, they're completely correct in that most people don't need it. I'd bet most everywhere I go would work with their nosewheel airplane.

[JimParker256]

When you can put a 35" tire inflated to 3psi on the front of a nosewheel airplane, then I'll believe you, until then, you simply won't get the ability to bounce off of an unseen stump without damage like you can with 35's and strong gear.

< SNIP >

Now, I'm not saying that reasonable people do this, but what I am saying is that when you screw up and hit a huge rock/stump, that gear will soak it up and you can fly home, while nothing with a nosegear will survive.

Schu, your point is absolutely valid: There are some places where NO nosewheel airplane should go.

That said – and as the video you linked amply demonstrates – there are also people posting stuff on YouTube who will intentionally go places no airplane should go, just to show off their superiority to the "rest of us"... I"m sorry, but I'm not impressed at all when someone with more money than brains (or who is auditioning for a Darwin Award) does something truly stupid in an airplane. There is no way I would risk all the time and effort and expense I put into building an airplane (not to mention possibly risking my life!) just for the ego-trip of saying "Yeah, I landed and taxied across a set of foot-deep ditches, just to prove how macho I am..." (I gotta wonder how long it took him to dig those ditches for the video, and if he filled them back in or left them as a "surprise" for the next poor pilot who lands there...)

I can't remember who (and I can't find the post now), but someone on Backcountry Pilots made a post about how amazed he was to learn that 35" Bushwheels (and probably a T3-suspension with Baby Bushwheels) were absolutely "required" to fly into all the places his dad (or uncle) flew into on a regular basis 20 years ago in their SuperCub on 8:50s and with a standard tailwheel...

When those "old school" pilots finally were able to get Goodyear 26s, they thought they had died and gone to heaven! But now anything less than 35s are completely unacceptable. What's next? 8:50's for tailwheels?

I agree that there are some places a commercial operator may have a legitimate "need" to go, where a nosewheel would not be suitable... (Need being defined as a "life or death" situation where there is no alternative to save a life – anything less than that would NOT qualify as "need to go" in my book.)

I would classify any field with tall grass that could mask "unseen stumps" as one of those places a nosewheel should definitely not go. But I would also classify it as a place where a tailwheel should not go, either - absent that "life or death" scenario. If you take a stump to the prop, or to tailwheel, you're probably not going to be a whole lot better off than the nosewheel guy... Neither of you is likely to be flying back out any time soon...

There are also places where a non-commercial operator (that's all of us flying Experimental airplanes) may "want" to go where a nosewheel probably should not go... But in the real world, those places are fewer in number than we tend to think... If we're honest with ourselves, the vast majority of places where a non-commercial operator should reasonably go are also reasonably accessible to a nosewheel airplane.

All that said, 35's definitely look cool, and I can see how they would provide a significant "safety and comfort factor" landing places where 8:50s might give you a pretty rough ride. But let's not pretend that they are "necessary" for 99% of the type of places we're actually likely to fly into.

[zkelley2]

The life and death "need" you speak of is 100% filled by helicopters. The ultimate STOL machine.

We are able to go places people 20 years ago couldn't on their 8.50s. I went all over the place on my 8.00s the beginning of last year. Places you see cubs on 35s. But I wanted to go some other places where the 8.00s would have probably worked, but it wasn't 100%. On 31s it was as close to guaranteed safe as you can get off airport. Places where if there's a mechanical or something breaks, you're staying until someone can bring you everything for the repair. And that is why I'm running them. I'd honestly like to get rid of the insane drag they cause.
What you're buying with the bushwheels is insurance, mostly. And flotation. 8.50s don't do very well in dry sand.

I'm largely agreeing with you. A lot of the "stol" backcountry flying on youtube I can do in a king air. PA18s on 35s very much not required.

[schu]

The only reason I posted was to point out that saying that the carbon cub nosedragger can go anywhere a taildragger can go is false, and that there are some legitimate uses for 31's.

When I have 31's on my airplane it will be 11.653% looks, 15% prop clearance, 17% angle of attack on landing, 24% angle of attack on takeoff, and 35% insurance against me being dumb.

[TrueAirSpeed]

For those of you who don't follow his YouTube channel, it appears he has good backcountry pilot skills. How would the outcome have been any different if he were flying a comparable tailwheel airplane with big Alaska bushwheels?

https://youtu.be/77LJUq-BlXE

Terry

[zkelley2]

He would have taxied away from that. Soft sand is 90% of the reason I run bushwheels. We do landings like that all the time, on softer sand than that. He even made a good call in landing closer to the water in the harder wet sand.

There's a bunch of tour companies that run 206s to the beaches for bear viewing. Every handful of years they do this same thing.

One of the advantages to a tailwheel airplane is where there is the most weight, it's distributed by 2 tires instead of 1. So even if you put a 31 somehow on the nose of a 182, it'd still have a lot more weight per sq in on the nose than a 180. Another advantage is if you lose the tailwheel for some reason, it's not that big of a deal. You can still fly it home even.

MT prop did a good job.

Now that he has it apart it'd be a great time to do the tailwheel conversion!

[TrueAirSpeed]

P.S. adhere to the oil analysis recommendation.

[JimParker256]

For those of you who don't follow his YouTube channel, it appears he has good backcountry pilot skills. How would the outcome have been any different if he were flying a comparable tailwheel airplane with big Alaska bushwheels?

https://youtu.be/77LJUq-BlXE

Terry

It's pretty hard to argue that if MotoAve had been flying a C180 with 35" Bushwheels (instead of the C-182 with an 8:50 tire on the nose), he probably would have suffered minimal damage landing on what turned out to be much softer-than-expected sand. But would he have been OK if he "only" had 31-inch Bushwheels? Odds are that he would still have been OK. Well then, what if they were even smaller 26" Goodyears? Or if he had the same size tire (21-inch 8:50x6) tires on his C180 mainwheels as the one he had on the C182 nose gear? Would the load being spread across two of the 21s kept it from sinking in and probably flipping over? Impossible to know for sure. In this case, tire sizes (and placement - nosewheel vs tailwheel) are trade offs – a form of risk mitigation.

The video clearly demonstrates that there are, indeed, some places where you should not land with a nosewheel, and that in the momenbt, we don't always get to choose where we land... Though to be fair, one could argue that by flying low along the beach, he was "choosing" to limit his emergency landing options such that he might no choices at all... The CFI's I've flown with (and my Army flight training) taught that an engine failure is a foreseeable event, and that you should give yourself an "out" if it were to occur. I was cringing during the earlier parts of the video, with the foreknowledge that he was definitely going to have an engine failure (it was in the video title), and thinking "Where would I land if the engine quit now?" with ditching the plane in the water as the only viable option at many points in that flight, due to the low altitudes and lack of "beach" along parts of that route. Would I, personally, have made that flight low along the coastline? Probably not. Would I have done so knowing that oil analysis was telling me something might be wrong with the engine? I would hope the answer would be "Definitely not..."

But I also have to acknowledge that every time I gett in the airplane and take off, I accept what I consider to be a very low risk of an engine failure over the densely populated area just off the end of my local airport's runway. If I want to fly the plane, there is no real way to totally eliminate that risk - the airport is now mostly surrounded by housing developments, with only a few open fields remaining. I can mitigate the risk by properly maintaining my engine, by performing a good pre-flight every time – including sumping the tanks, and by planning ahead for the possibility of the engine quitting and knowing where I would go at every point in the takeoff and climb portion... But I can not completely eliminate all risks in flying, any more than I can eliminate all risks in any aspect of life.

We ALL take risks when we fly. Some risks we avoid by not doing something that might increase risk. Others we mitigate as best we can. Some folks (like me) won't knowingly fly into "rough, unprepared" fields. Others install larger tires "just in case" they wind up in a rougher-than-expected landing zone. And some will not fly without 35s on their plane, even if they land 99% of the time on paved, 5000-foot runways, just because they might someday need to land off-airport.

But there are also some risks that can be mitigated by tricycle gear. One of those is better ground handing in strong crosswinds -– especially as you approach the limit of what the airplane can handle. I'm not a super-pilot – just an average Joe... But I managed to get my tricycle gear RANS S-6 (which stalls at something below 30 mph, and which has a published "demonstrated crosswind" capability of 25 mph) on the ground and to the tiedown area in winds that were 35G45, and that were 20* off the runway heading. This took place at the end of a 2.5 hour cross-country leg. I was bringing the plane home from Utah where I purchased it. The winds that came up in the Albuquerque area were significantly higher than what was forecast even an hour earlier. There were several airports within my fuel range, all of which were experiencing similar (or even higher) winds. I chose the one whose runway was most closely aligned with the wind direction ("only" 20* of crosswind). There was no "good" option, only the "least bad" option in this circumstance...

I seriously doubt that I could have landed there had I been flying the S-6 tailwheel model - otherwise identical to mine. As it was, I found myself flying backward on short final at a very low power setting... I had to add power and literally hover the plane onto the runway at about 1/2 throttle. I then had to add power to be able to taxi into that wind. Only the fact that the nosewheel could be held onto the ground with down-elevator allowed me to have enough traction to turn the plane enough (maybe 30*) to cut the corner of the taxiway intersection, and "skitter" the plane across the ramp to a tie-down that was somewhat shielded from the worst of the wind by a hangar. (Unfortunately, that also made the wind quite "swirly" and unpredictable.)

I was very fortunate that a local guy saw my predicament, and came over to help tie the plane down while I held the brakes and kept the engine running to keep from being blown backwards. When I finally got out of the plane, I literally kissed the ground (and the airplane) in relief. Not something I hope to ever experience again! I kept thinking: if I had I purchased an S-6 with a tailwheel (which is what I had originally wanted before changing my mind), the outcome would have been very much in question... A better pilot might have managed to keep it pinned to the ground, and even perhaps done a tail-high taxi (like you see in the YouTube videos) to the taxiway turnoff. But I cannot envision any way that even a truly superior pilot could have made the turn and taxied to the parking area, much less how he could have gotten out of the plane to tie it down... Letting the tail down to the ground would have launched the plane into the air immediately (winds were well above the stall speed of 28-30 mph). Even behind the hangar, the lighter weight after exiting the plane would have likely sent it airborne again... Bigger tires on the taildragger would have only increased the angle of attack on the ground, potentially making a bad situation even worse...

[schu]

It's pretty hard to argue that if MotoAve had been flying a C180 with 35" Bushwheels (instead of the C-182 with an 8:50 tire on the nose), he probably would have suffered minimal damage landing on what turned out to be much softer-than-expected sand. But would he have been OK if he "only" had 31-inch Bushwheels? Odds are that he would still have been OK. Well then, what if they were even smaller 26" Goodyears? Or if he had the same size tire (21-inch 8:50x6) tires on his C180 mainwheels as the one he had on the C182 nose gear? Would the load being spread across two of the 21s kept it from sinking in and probably flipping over? Impossible to know for sure. In this case, tire sizes (and placement - nosewheel vs tailwheel) are trade offs – a form of risk mitigation.

Let me fix that for you:

he wouldn't have suffered any "damage landing on what turned out to be much softer-than-expected sand" The point of 35's is to directly go into places like that without worry because it makes it safe.

I'd say that 31's would have been fine, 29's almost certainly fine (I wasn't there to see the sand, but a good pilot would drag it first and see his tracks), 26 goodyears are a LOT smaller than 29's so probably not, and anything smaller than that I'd say the sand is too soft.

Zach's point about weight distribution is huge. With a nosedragger the weight of the engine is on the nose as the main gear is behind the CG. With a taildragger the weight of the engine is on the main gear, and since there are two of them, you immediately have twice the flotation given the same size tire.

[JimParker256]

Hard to "drag it first and see his tracks" when you've had an engine failure... Kind of makes that "go round" thing pretty difficult.

That said, I believe we're in agreement for the most part on the other points. I'm perhaps a bit less confident that there is no sand too soft for 35-inch tires, having seen 4WD vehicles drop (axle sitting on the ground) into a "pocket" in soft sand with 40+ inch tire/wheels installed... And I'm talking about "falling into" a soft spot in the sand, not spinning the wheels and burying them. Turned out there was a tumbleweed buried in the sand that left an "air pocket" that collapsed when the Jeep rolled over it. Found the remains of the tumbleweed when we dug him out. But that's NOT what happened in MotoAve's video...

[Gerd Mannsperger]

35" Bushwheels are unreasonable to drag around for 95% of us and that includes me.

If you really have to go to the worst place for a good reason OK but it has to be a real good reason -- the drag penalty is huge and to actually Land where 35s are needed comes with a huge amount of risk. How much do you like your plane.

To Land anywhere where you would not be able to land on 31 should be unreasonable to most. If you think they are cool go ahead fill your boots they are kinda like a plane with lead boots. 26 inch bush wheels are the sweet spot for all around 31 if you push it hard in a capable plane 35s are great for Beavers.


Now on the nose wheel VS tailwheel a 180 on the same size tires would have sustained way more damage than the 182 and the risk of injury would have been much higher when they flip over ----they flip over hard and fast better have a god shoulder harness.

That said I much rather be in a tailwheel aircraft for of airport work done right it allows me to do a nicer job making it easier on the Aircraft.

The Nose wheel always fells like abuse when you need braking on rough ground.

[zkelley2]

The 180 on 31s would have sustained no damage.

[Battson]

I'd say that 31's would have been fine, 29's almost certainly fine (I wasn't there to see the sand, but a good pilot would drag it first and see his tracks), 26 goodyears are a LOT smaller than 29's so probably not, and anything smaller than that I'd say the sand is too soft.

You can literally taxi over dry running sand with 31s on a Bearhawk 4-place, apart from the tailwheel which does sink in.

You could DEFINITELY have landed on that beach which got MotoAve... taxiing would have sucked, but you could takeoff with no weight on board.

[Gerd Mannsperger]

There comes a-point where you have to decide what you want from an aircraft 31s may not be it. Maybe you should have 600 tires and a parachute.

Or how about this -- You could have been just a bit too far from the beach and the larger tires may just have induced enough drag so you end up in the trees instead of flipping over on the beach.
If it was as simple as bolting on Big tires to be save in all situations this sure would be simple -- unfortunately this is far from being so.

While I may sound like a Nay sayer I just bought an other set of Bush wheels -- they have there place as a great tool but they are not a fix all deal.

[zkelley2]

But they do specifically fix the problem mentioned here. Flotation, or rather significantly reducing the pressure the aircraft puts on the ground per inch.
There's nothing better for real soft fields.
And I think given how the guy in the video uses his 182, soft field performance is a rather high priority.

[schu]

I actually met MotoDave a few weeks ago at Tieton. I asked how he wasn't going through props like cookies, he said that he nearly always flies with the Jughead guy in a 170 who does the first landing and makes sure it's safe for his nosedragger.

As for the commentary about landing on beaches and bushwheels, I wonder how many people here have landed on beaches.... and I'm not talking about S16.

[rodsmith]

Used to land my Maule with 8.50s on Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound beaches. Planned my trips to land with an outgoing tide so had firm moist sand to land on. Talked to other pilots who had recently been on the same beach whenever possible.