Harry Clements explained how Cessna came to design their "optimised mediocrity": http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/tracking-the-conception-birth-and-life-of-the-172/
Very interesting article.
That most commercial planes are nosedraggers, however, has the main reason that the floor is even if the aircraft is parked. Or at least, this was a historic reason to change the perspective to nosedragger vs. conventional gear. [The thought of a A380 taildragger ended in spontaneous laughter... ] The tailwheel will survive, where it has found its niche and I don't expect much change in the future. Although I think some commercial pilots could benefit from a couple of hours J-3C or Aeronca time, in contrast of driving 300 hp Bos for initial training...
...mediocrity...
What exactly is mediocre about a Cessna 172?
That most commercial planes are nosedraggers, however, has the main reason...
... and the other main reason that downwards pointing jet engines will in no time ruin aprons, taxiways and runways! Some years ago we had a guy at our airport who had bought one of the ex Swiss airforce De Havilland Vampires (or Venoms or whatever). Not exactly a taildragger, but still with a downward pointing engine. After he melted the holding area of one of the taxiways, he was banned to use this airport - not he himself, but his Vampire.
Although I think some commercial pilots could benefit from a couple of hours J-3C or Aeronca time...
And what kind of benefit could that be? The special techniques that can be learned from flying taildraggers unfortunately only apply to taildraggers...
And what kind of benefit could that be? The special techniques that can be learned from flying taildraggers unfortunately only apply to taildraggers...
Sorry, but that is not true. They will learn to complete a landing not before they have reached
taxiing speed.
More than once I happened to be on board a Cessna 172 up to 210 where the pilot finished his landing
about 6 feet off the ground and let the aircraft plunge down the runway.
Doing this with a conventional gear aircraft will ruin your day ...
in other words you will learn how to handle a landing properly - of course not a must to
those among us who already sucked all abilities in with the mother's milk 
What exactly is mediocre about a Cessna 172?
Like ... everything. And that's the reason why it's so popular, or successful, one might say. Unfortunately, internet communication killed the ironic undertone. What it means is, that the 172 is a very balanced airplane. It is easy to fly without being too slow motioned, it is roomy without paying too much in speed, it is reasonably fast without needing too much runway or getting too sharp to fly. You have a quite good payload without giving up too much comfort or using too big engines... you'll get the picture. The C172 is an astonishing balanced airplane. It's far from being the best in one particular field, but it does everything well.
and the other main reason that downwards pointing jet engines will in no time ruin aprons, taxiways and runways!
Yes, but I'think the trend to use tri-gear set ups came a bit earlier, if you think DC4, Constellation, C74, C124, Boeing 377 and so on.
And what kind of benefit could that be? The special techniques that can be learned from flying taildraggers unfortunately only apply to taildraggers...
Au Contraire! Correct use of rudder and precise flying the wing (or the aoa) may not be necessary for "driving" a nose dragger, but that does not mean that you can't benefit from it. In fact, if you fly an airplane, you have to fly it like a taildragger anyway. Just taxiing gets easier with a tri gear. Essential stick and rudder skills are at least as important to an aviator as system knowledge, decision making or situational awareness. The latest incidents kind of prove this point, don't they?
cheers,
More than once I happened to be on board a Cessna 172 up to 210 where the pilot finished his landing about 6 feet off the ground and let the aircraft plunge down the runway.
But I've seen that same thing happening with people flying Pa18s (luckily without me on board). A good landing is always done by the pilot, whatever aircraft he flies (unless it is autoland capable...).
But I've seen that same thing happening with people flying Pa18s (luckily without me on board). A good landing is always done by the pilot, whatever aircraft he flies (unless it is autoland capable...).
So... better not learn, you might have a bad day nonetheless, then?
Like most relatively recent PPLs, I've been flying Trigear aircraft, 4 different ones, for a few years. I resolutely believed that they are better than tail draggers, the world has evolved, no place for them. My instructor agreed and we discussed this a few times. It would be silly to go 'backwards' to a tail dragger, and surely people who fly them are just clinging on to the past.
4 years on.... And I just bought one, well half actually, my old instructor owns the other half. And we have both rediscovered flying!
I turn up at the field...which aircraft comes out? Over the last few weeks, it's been the tail dragger.
So for touring, or a crosswind above 10kts, or going anywhere .... It's the tecnam Trigear, but for pure fun, just flying for the hell of it, it's the tail dragger.
What's more, when I do fly the Tecnam, my landings are better, in fact, all my flying is better. I'm more reactive with the rudder, and smoother on the landing. My landings were never bad, just mildly lazy because they could be, but now I fly the tail dragger (which punishes you badly for every tiny mistake) suddenly I'm more on the ball.
Are tail dragger pilots 'better'? Well I am better for flying a tail dragger, that's for sure. I would recommend a tail wheel conversion to anyone.
I never thought of this as a "versus" thing at all.
Taildraggers were the first evolutionary stage - a lot easier to construct initially I would say (thinking back to WW1 days), and back then you always landed into the wind anyways.
Tri-gear was a technical evolution once paved runways became more prevalent, material and construction science allowed for building robust front gear struts, and also at a point where many pilots came into aviation who weren't trained for 100(0)s of hours on difficult to fly planes, and on military budgets. It was a logical development in its time, and the results are still logical and useful today.
But there is still a reason why many aerobatics planes, and also the bush planes we have left, use the taildragger arrangement - it's better for the missions those planes are designed for. No "versus", no p***ing contest between pilots necessary in my opinion - it's a case where a tool is designed for a certain job, as opposed to the more general purpose tools that most of us fly.
And obviously those planes would be more fun, most of the time - again it's due to their missions (which rubs off on the planes), and due to the fact that most humans like a challenge (at least the ones who also thought they want a pilot's license). I'm going out on a plank here for this comparison, realizing that this opinion might be almost exclusively my own, but: I find all big-production modern cars (even when called 'sporty' by marketing) to be nothing but boring, from a driver's perspective. They are convenient, and comfortable, and very good for impressing certain kinds of people, but driving them simply feels uninvolved, generic and synthetic (I'm including BMWs and most Porsches in this lot) - once you've driven something a little bit older. The older car might not be as fast, and it certainly won't be as quiet or easy, but it sure is a hell of a lot more fun!
You're dead right about cars... porsches, and nearly every other production 'sporty' car are not really sporty at all. Many people have discovered this, and there's no need to go to old cars - there's a reasonable sized market in proper driving machines either in Kit form or from the factory - for example Caterham, KTM, Radical, Arial, Westfield. Once you've driven one of these, you laugh at luxury convertible cars pretending to be sports cars. But again... which would you choose for a long journey? The one that doesn't handle so well is preferred as comfort is king.
I never thought of this as a "versus" thing at all.
Me neither, but I'm growing allergic against this repeated claim of "having flown taildraggers makes you a better pilot" stuff that one keeps hearing, mostly from amateurs on the internet. This would mean that 99 percent of all professional pilots out there, civilians as well as military, are not quite as good pilots as they could be because they never flew taildraggers. If that would really be true, then some smart guy at some aviation authority (yes, they really do also employ smart people) would long have mandated 10 hours of taildragger handling in the training syllabus.
