Jump to content

Reverse tricycle.


Recommended Posts

Just a question out of the blue. Does a reverse tricycle under carriage require the pilot to have a tail dragger certificate/license? Not saying why the question is relevant 028_whisper.gif.c42ab2fd36dd10ba7a7ea829182acdc1.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand why you'd do it. Normal tricycle puts the main gear in the right spot for landing at stall AoA. So does normal taildragger. What possible benefit would reverse tricycle give you?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you'd do it. Normal tricycle puts the main gear in the right spot for landing at stall AoA. So does normal taildragger. What possible benefit would reverse tricycle give you?

It seems to me you would get the worst of Both worlds

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like this? [ATTACH=full]61272[/ATTACH]

If you look carefully is has a slat/flap/aileron arrangement which looks as if it increases the angle of attack substantially, and the tail wheel is quite a bit higher than the mains.

I'd suggest this was someone's idea for low level surveillance, flying and landing nose down on the mains, and settling on the rear wheel later, which gave the aircraft stable crosswind solo taxying on battlefield landing sites. Based on the configuration dying out, it probably wasn't a success. Around that time the USAF tried many weird designs, including a vertical take off fighter that sat on the ground, like a rocket, on four tiny wheels. Just imaging what it would be like stopping a big fighter in mid air, getting it to drop tail low, then reversing in a downwards curve on to a landing pad.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends if the mains are forward or aft of the c/g, If they are forward of the C/G then it is still a tail dragger.

 

The idea of moving the tail wheel forward is to give the rudder more leverage over it and hopefully be more controllable. pretty much as Red said.I Have my doubts as too how effective it is.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is IF the mainwheels are ahead of the centre of gravity. The tailwheel (or nosewheel) determines the pitch it sits at and may be actively steerable or castering. Any time any wheel ahead of the Cof G is carrying the majority of the mass of the plane it's directionally unstable. In both designs the Mains are built much stronger as they are designed to carry the bulk of the forces, and should be flown in accordance with that principle. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not unsurprising the kit built tailwheel Europa that had the “tailwheel” up under the fuselage had a very popular modification to have a tailwheel down at the end.

 

I’ve three lovely cast tailwheel yokes and wheels from ones I worked on the convertion of

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having it at the rear is simpler in many ways and can be less substantial to do the same job.. If you want to retract it, coming forward is almost a necessity.. I've flown a Sokol and they are not so different but you were told to not abuse the tailwheel. It's still a real taildragger in principle, except the geometry prevents a real nose high landing. With effective flaps this is unnecessary anyhow. Steer with the tailwheel? Yes for sure. Set it up to work properly .That's why you keep the stick right back after landing, to keep the weight on it especially on planes with an undersized or shielded rudder.( Not when taxiing downwind though). Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather ride a good sidecar outfit than a trike . If you haven't done it you only speculate. . It does need a lot more power, have the right adjustment s and frame attach points, a strong enough frame for the bike and not have too high a centre of gravity. Nev..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather ride a good sidecar outfit than a trike . If you haven't done it you only speculate. . It does need a lot more power, have the right adjustment s and frame attach points, a strong enough frame for the bike and not have too high a centre of gravity. Nev..

I've (briefly) ridden two, and somehow survived. Not my idea of good transport design.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes a while to get confidence and the skill. to handle a sidecar. If someone briefly tried a tailwheel and didn't like it would you see them as competent to judge?. it probably takes about 60 hours at least to get good with a tailwheel plane. even though they used to solo in eight.. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Means you must have curved section tires and less rubber area on the road when you are cornering.. Pillion riders have to be taught to lean with the bike as they are obviously uncomfortable with the new sensation (for them)

 

.Anyhow back to tailwheels. a configuration that probably only a minority of "modern" pilots will ever fly.

 

Makes me recall a pilot who had never flown anything but a jet who wanted to fly a DH 82. with no brakes and a tailskid., with ME training him. As you probably know jet engines have no twisting flow so no rudder is needed unless an engine fails in a multi engine one. Bit how some people fly a C-172. The pedals are there to rest your feet on. and steer it on the ground. Nev

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...