Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Taildragger v. Tricycle landing gear

I realise early planes were all taildraggers so the answer to "why" is probably "it just happened", but taildraggers continue to be designed from new, so what are the relative advantages?

As I see it, a taildragger sits on the ground with a very high AoA, which assists a short takeoff run. Basically this is a standard "soft field takeoff" in a tricycle type but without the high elevator drag which that involves (which is why a soft field takeoff is not actually shorter than a normal takeoff, in terms of getting right off the ground).

It might also save weight because the tailwheel weighs next to nothing compared to the necessarily strong nosewheel of a tricycle type.

The prop clearance is better so it's better for rough terrain ops.

But you lose a huge amount of crosswind tolerance, forward view in some types, etc...

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Pro taildragger: less weight, less drag, simpler construction. Con: risk of ground loop on landing.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

A tailwheel weighs less, costs less, requires less maintenance and has less drag than a nosewheel. You're less likely to get stone chip damage on the ground and you lose nothing in crosswind capability.

However a 'taildragger' can be a lot more demanding on the ground due to a tailskid providing less control than a tailwheel.

Overall, a conventional gear just requires a more demanding and precise technique on take off and landing, but it's actually quite fun!

KHWD- Hayward California; EGTN Enstone Oxfordshire, United States

The sole reason that taildraggers exist is so that pilots of taildraggers can pretend that they are better pilots!

Forever learning
EGTB

I'd agree with everything said by Mark 1, although I must bow to his knowledge of tailskids as I have never landed one of those.

The real answer to Peters query "why" is, I suspect, the last reason given by Mark 1, they are terrific fun.

A reason not mentioned is a greater Prop clearance with shorter (read: lighter / less draggier) legs.

And, of course, it looks much better:

Stickandrudderman: No. As experience shows, nosedragger pilots can indeed become rudder-lazy, the plane itself has to be flown right in all landing gear configurations, but the nosedragger is quite a bit easier to taxi.

[edited to add a blank line before the pic - see here]

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

In addition to the foregoing excellent observations, I can add the following:

Taildraggers are usually structurally simpler, there is no need to concentrate structure at the front to carry "landing" loads, as there is generally adequate structure associated with the tail back there already anyway.

They are no less capable in a crosswind, but do demand more skill to get the same capability.

They are far far superior on skis.

And, as explained to me by Dave Thurston, (famous aircraft designer, including Teal and Lake Amphibian, ex of Grumman, now 94) flying boat amphibians must be taildraggers if you want to succeed in beaching them. When you beach a nosewheel flying boat (like Lake Amphibian), if you manage to do it without hitting too hard, and breaking off the nosewheel, you still risk that any wind or current will cause the aircraft to pivot around the nosewheel, and now you cannot taxi out. Taildragger flying boats do not suffer this problem, and indeed straighten themselves out nicely as you beach, so you undo the effect of the wind/current, and the most robust wheels are taking the "abuse".

Taildraggers are now nearly "specialized" aircraft, but there will always be a need for this configuration.

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

Airliners for the past 60 years have been nosewheel there,s a good reason for that.I learnt to fly on tailwheel (condor and Jodel 1050) and have done lots of flying instructing and examining in light tailwheel types.I owned Condors for nearly 30 years as the years passed and my finances improved I wanted to go serious touring!For reliability and maximum chance of achieving the desired task..nosewheel was the way to go..step forward the superb Robin DR400.There,s good reasons the 172 and cherokee families sold so well.I love tailwheel flying and still practise it (Miles Magister last week) however if I want a stress free journey with maximum chance of task completion...nosewheel configuration please.VBR Stampe

EGMD EGTO EGKR, United Kingdom

Airliners for the past 60 years have been nosewheel there,s a good reason for that.

The general principle discovered by Charles Darwin not only applies to living things, but also to products manufactured by living things. Apart from a few niches - as pointed out by Pilot DAR and others - there is no place in evolution for the taildragger.

But maybe the introdution of the new 120kg microlight category will revive this almost extinct species :-) (as it will be very difficult to design tricycle landing gears within that limitation!)

And regarding the supposedly better ground clearance of taildragger propellers just google (or search YouTube) for "taildragger prop strike" ;-) And if they don't hit the ground, they hit other aeroplanes, vehicles, buildings or people instead while taxiing blindly.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Cessna called its first tricycle landing gear the "Land-O-Matic".

45 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top