Taildragger Conversion

[Peasant_Pilot]

Good evening,

 

So, while I'm in stage of doing some design work and add ons with the Foxcon, it crossed my mind about a taildragger version, structurally they are capable and I can see a valid way to do it..........BUT, it is just a thought and I'm more than happy to keep it as a tricycle setup....

 

That being said id be interested to see peoples thoughts in general on taildragger conversions, Have you done one? complications? positives , so on so on

 

Would appreciate peoples thoughts

 

Cheers

 

Rob

[Paul davenport]

I thought at one stage there was a tail wheel version of it 

[Peasant_Pilot]

1 hour ago, Paul davenport said:

I thought at one stage there was a tail wheel version of it 

So apparantly was never produced but one person did a conversion on one with success, Helmut told me about it but havnt been able to dig up any info

[spacesailor]

The HummleBird is tricycle OR tailwheel, your choice !.

Mains are just reversed onto the opposite wing, & tailwheel converted. 

OR is it ghe other way about,

Morry,s is the tail dragger,  And learners opt for that nose-wheel, ease of landing.

spacesailor

[Peasant_Pilot]

2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

The HummleBird is tricycle OR tailwheel, your choice !.

Mains are just reversed onto the opposite wing, & tailwheel converted. 

OR is it ghe other way about,

Morry,s is the tail dragger,  And learners opt for that nose-wheel, ease of landing.

spacesailor

Iv seen a couple of kit aircraft like that. I can see what needs to be done and how I could do it, I'd want to beef it up a tad though I think

[Paul davenport]

The Hummel is a fantastic Looking little aircraft. Every thing looks in perfect proportion  .  I know of one with a 503 rotax  but the engine of choice is the 1/2 vw. I wonder if another opposed twin would fit as I have heard the vw has some vibration issues . Park on in my hanger any time you want

[spacesailor]

Hirth 3202 motor goes well. McCulloch 4 cylider 2 stroke is a little over powered, and very thirsty.

The two cylinder HALF VW, is just powerfull enough, & Super thrifty on fuel.

The Rotax 503 had to have ' lead weights ' put in the nose for C B.

Remember that tail draggers are ' tail heavy ' 

While, nose draggers have the .motor pushed forward to accommodate the nosegear. Meaning heavier pilot accommodation.

( pilot weight goes to rear CB ).

spacesailor

 

[Kyle Communications]

I just received the nose dragger bits for my S-21...originally ordered as a TD but insurance is very high especially as I have no TD time. So will build and fly it as a nose dragger but only takes less than an hour to convert to a TD..best of both worlds 🙂

[kasper]

12 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Hirth 3202 motor goes well. McCulloch 4 cylider 2 stroke is a little over powered, and very thirsty.

The two cylinder HALF VW, is just powerfull enough, & Super thrifty on fuel.

The Rotax 503 had to have ' lead weights ' put in the nose for C B.

Remember that tail draggers are ' tail heavy ' 

While, nose draggers have the .motor pushed forward to accommodate the nosegear. Meaning heavier pilot accommodation.

( pilot weight goes to rear CB ).

spacesailor

 

Sorry spacey - you are 95% wrong on your description of tail heavy and engines pushed forward.  Tailwheel airfraft are never 'tail heavy' and the engine on a nosewheel is rarely moved for balance reasons. 

 

The CofG range that is safe in relation to the wings centre of lift is exactly the same regardless of undercarriage configuration on an airframe.

 

The issue on ballasting (or mass relocation) dependent on undercarriage design is in relation to the distribution of the undercarriage mass around the CofG.

 

In all cases the main legs and wheels are the greater mass with the tailwheel/noseleg being a less mass.

 

When you move the heavy main legs from in front of the CofG to the rear of it when changing an airframe from tail to nose landing you need to offset this by moving mass from behind to the front ... and you do that by taking a tailwheel mass and replacing it by the noseleg.  It is quite often the case that the nose leg mass on a short moment arm is around the same total moment as the lighter tailwheel mass on a longer arm and you end up with no net balance adjustment required.

 

Some designs are not so lucky - and the lighter and smaller the design the more likely it is that the landing gear changes will require reballast or other mass adjustments.  In some cases this is by choice done with an engine move as it stops the empty weight growing as much but thats a choice.

 

Engine placement on really small and light airframes is more of an engine mass issue - the Hummelbird has a design engine mass with the half vw  of 29% of empty being enigine and that engine is a long way forward of a very small CofG range

the 4 engines you mention for the Hummebird vary the engine mass by up 25% either side of the half VW ... if you are comparing those configs of Hummelbird you looking at are moving the location of the engine on the Hummelbird not due to landing gear config but due to engine choice.

 

 

[Geoff_H]

At the end of the day the location of the CofG to the Aerodynamic lift centre has to be the same either configuration. There maybe some different moments on the aircraft owing to nose wheel drag, just make sure that at landing speeds these are easily compensated by available tail moment 

[facthunter]

The biggest issue is making the new position of the Main gear structurally sound. It probably has to go forward about 15 inches and the Tail may benefit by being a bit larger. I wouldn't be considering doing it although I'm partial to tailwheel planes , tri gear is more desired by/for most pilots.  They (T/W) are certainly harder to insure.. Nev

[Geoff_H]

Don't forget that that CofG must fall within the triangle formed by all three wheels (or skid).

As well the distance between the Cof G and the main wheels axle can affect ground handling 

The spitfire and one of their German counterparts have been reported that theain wheels  were as too close to each other and increased difficulty of ground handling.

[spacesailor]

The H B, s nose wheel configuration,  requires room, between  the engine & firewall !.

Without moving the motor forward, How would you squeeze it in !, (  we,re talking inches not metres ( lots of connecting bit from rudder-bar ))

The pilot,s bum sits behind, the wing spar, the heavier that bum, the more rearward the C B,

The tailwheel has more than the wheel weight, ' extension from rudder to T piece, with two springs, two reinforcement plates in the fuselage. 

( Hope l havn,t missed something serious )  LoL.

spacesailor

 

[Mike Gearon]

On 5/4/2022 at 8:54 PM, Kyle Communications said:

I just received the nose dragger bits for my S-21...originally ordered as a TD but insurance is very high especially as I have no TD time. So will build and fly it as a nose dragger but only takes less than an hour to convert to a TD..best of both worlds 🙂

I am just about to order a finishing kit for the S21. It’s currently TD and as it’s a shared build my buddy wants TD but not flown yet. We will add the nose wheel as option and understand the tail needs a bit of reinforcing.

 

Yes, insurance is more. Not sure here but I Pay 3k a year in USA or roughly 4.3k AUD.  Is here more expensive?

 

I’m flying the tricycle Pipistrel here and miss the TD. Especially when needing to pull up hard on a rough bush strip and holding the elevator back knowing it won’t help much. TD just throw the anchors out, watch the tail isn’t coming up and concentrate on small left right corrections all the way until fully stopped. I’ve managed a tail loop so semi qualified to discuss. 😀 

[Kyle Communications]

I was quoted over a year ago around $5500 for RANS S-21  TD with little experience and 90k hull insurance

My sav was $1900 for 60k hull insurance

 

[Peasant_Pilot]

Well insurance difference I didn't really even factor into the equation, definitely helps with the decision 

 

Cheers for all the input

 

Rob

[Student Pilot]

Not worth the time or effort, leave it like it was manufactured either tailwheel or nosewheel. There are no great advantages to either.

There is virtually no performance increase from going from nose to tailwheel, no speed increase, almost non existent weight advantage. A well flown 182 will go everywhere a 180 will go. (Exception being an EXTREMELY rough strip which will damage either aircraft)  

A personal peeve is people calling a nosewheel a "Nosedragger", it is not. It pushes if anything, there are tailwheel (Used to be called conventional) and nosewheel aircraft.

You don't have to be a skygod or exceptionally gifted to fly a tailwheel like some will have you believing. It is a learned skill, learnable by most.

You can place your hat at a jaunty angle and have the "Ace pilot tailwheel swagger" should you choose. These options are not available to the poorly nosewheel pilot. Your choice.

[facthunter]

A Tailwheel plane is directionally unstable on the ground and can catch people who think they have the game skun.. So is a tri gear if the weight is on the nosewheel. (Landing too fast and forcing the plane onto the ground.) Most people who fly tailwheel planes have ground looped or gone close to it, especially if you  are converting tricycle only pilots.. You HAVE to let it go till it's nearly critical or the student will just think you're a nervous nellie. Nev

[spacesailor]

The tail / nose wheel speed difference IS very noticeable in lower powered aircraft.

I,m talking at least 10 knts, just putting a lump of a 5x4 wheel behind your prop will take away the airflow .

While the tailwheel is smaller and much further away.

Very short coupled aircraft are noticeably twitchy. 

And the aircraft maker often puts out both configurations.

Just my observation. 

spacesailor

[Mike Gearon]

Reasons to go tail wheel reducing order of importance in my humble estimation…

No nose wheel to worry about during landings on bush strip with concerns for

. First contact with the ground and how big the bumps and ruts are.
. First contact with ground by nose wheel or tail wheel. Definitely tail wheel wins big here. It’s in the back and can just harmlessly be bumped a bit into the air by a rabbit hole etc that may  take the nose wheel right off. Tail wheel still needs protecting of course. Slammed into the ground and stuff can break.

. Crosswind. Nice to be able to plant the aircraft nicely on the ground where the aircraft isn’t easily thrown back into the air. A nose wheel is after rears make contact with the ground going to be gently skimming the ground or still not in contact. Easily thrown up into the air on the necessarily faster crosswind landing. I, again do this occasionally  at the hilltop and being slow and back in the air I’m sometimes either at add throttle or keep off ailerons and mostly ruder so a wing isn’t dragged downward by the long flaperon. Tail wheel at this point is firmly in contact with the ground and really not a factor.

. Braking. I’m doing this almost daily and really dislike it twice. First time is I settle the nose wheel down. I have an uphill and downhill component. If I’m late I have to try to settle the nose wheel gently  then eventually brake while going downhill. Just not a factor in a tail wheel. Second is again being a little late and being forced to use more brake than you’d like because the fence is not that far away. Again, tail wheel wins hugely here. Just brake as hard as you like with little left and right corrections as needed to keep the nose very interested in the Center line and back off if the tails coming up. Worst case it’s started to go to crap and you apply power and correct or  very worst case go around.

. Reduced drag and increased speed and fuel efficiency.

. it looks cool. I admit to liking the tail dragger look with the big tundra tyres. At OSH Kosh 2021 this Pipistrel Virus tail wheel  was my pick of all aircraft at the show just based on refinement and efficiency in flight followed by the Rans S21 for its STOL and high speed cruise capabilities. 

pics below are the Pipistrel Virus that looks heaps better in tail wheel and RANS S21 which I think looks cool either tricycle or tail and those big tundra tyres in tricycle you’d think would handle anything. Makes me want to assemble tricycle first…. We will see. 

Reasons not to go tail wheel.

 

So much less to worry about after a long fatiguing flight or not on your best game. I flew the Pipistrel to Tyabb yesterday and swapped out for the Nynja

 Even tricycle the Pipistrel Virus has a lot going on. CSU, airbrake and long wings. Flying the tricycle Nynja home with 20kn winds was almost go to sleep easy to land on the bush strip. 
 

 Very  happy to have the option with the Rans S21 build. It’s relatively easy to swap out if everything is prepared correctly during build (I’m told this is the case anyway). Same tundra tyres and a third one in front and move the wheels back. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Mike Gearon

[onetrack]

Remember there's generally a reduced forward vision penalty with a taildragger. Add in big diameter tyres, and the problem gets worse.

 

One positive is increased prop-to-ground clearance, a major advantage if you're regularly landing in rough strip conditions.

 

I'd have to opine you'd only choose a taildragger configuration if most of your landings were in rough surface conditions.

 

The tricycle undercarriage assists greatly in reducing the tendency for the aircraft to flip upside down when you hit something in a crash landing.

I'd imagine flipping upside down would be extremely unpleasant, and also likely to result in an increased chance of injury.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by onetrack

[pylon500]

'The tricycle undercarriage assists greatly in reducing the tendency for the aircraft to flip upside down when you hit something in a crash landing.

I'd imagine flipping upside down would be extremely unpleasant, and also likely to result in an increased chance of injury.'

 

Hmm, 🤔 , from memory, more RV-•A's (the nosewheel versions) have ended up on their back than their tailwheel counterparts...

[facthunter]

  A wheelbarrowing tricycle U/C is about the worst thing you can get for directional instability. The nosewheel is far forward of any taildragger main gear.. You DO have to be pretty incompetent to make it happen, but it happens more often than it should. Nosewheels damage easily too and when they do you are inclined very nose down and very likely to invert on grass or any soft surface.  Nev

[facthunter]

I have seen a Caribou run the nosewheel along the runway with the mains about 2 feet off the runway. Full flap and power. Nice demo. Nev

[Yenn]

There are a lot of nosewheel incidents but I don't put this down to nosewheels being bad. It is more a case of the pilot letting things get out of control. A taildragger pilot is very conscious of getting the speed correct for the landing. Once we start flying with a nosewheel it is easy to put the plane down with excess speed and I thin it happens because we get lazy.