tail draggers vs. tricycle type landing gears

[steve pagano]

I'm thinking of putting tricycle type landing gears on my 2 current projects i was wondering what are the goods and the bads to tail dragger's vs. tricycle type landing gears?
         
                           thanks in advance

[Marvin Denny]

  Both types look very good while either flying or sitting on the ground.
  The good part of the tail dragger, is lightness,  The trike has one more large wheel and one more heavy steel strut. The bad part of the tail dragger is the tendency of the tail to continue to drop lower when the main gear hits the ground and this gives the wing a little more lift and tend to baloon back into the air.
  The trike's good point is that when the main gear hits the ground, the NOSE tends to continue on downward and this effectively REDUCES the wing life and reduces the tendency to baloon.  The bad part of the trike is the extra weight of an additional large wheel and strut.  Also it is somewhat more difficult to work a good cowl and fuel tank into a plane with a nose strut in the way.

  Just my opinion

  Bigiron

[Bill Little]

Yep, what Bigiron said!    Weight, drag, and nose "problems" of the front wheel are all the downsides that I have ever heard of for a Tricycle gear.  Saying that, there are many very successful tricycle gear planes.  Including two Walker Trophy Winners I can think of off the top of my pointed *little* head! 

Bill <><

[Trostle]

(clip)

 Saying that, there are many very successful tricycle gear planes.  Including two Walker Trophy Winners I can think of off the top of my pointed *little* head! 

Bill <><

How many tricycle gear planes can be named that won the Walker Cup?  I am sure this is not an exhaustive list, but these are the ones that come to mind.  If I have left any off of this list, it is truly unintentional.

1961 - Lew McFarland - Shark
1963 - Bob Gialdini - Stingray
1965 - Bob Gialdini - Stingray
1967 - Bart Klapinski - Tempest
1969 - Bob Lampioni - F-86 Saber

Note:
In 1958, Bob Randal won the Open Championship with Charles Mackey's Junkers Gobbleswantz.  However, Art Pawloski, a Senior, won the Walker Cup that year.

If this list is complete, it has only been 37 years since a tricycle design won the Nats.

I think most who have studied this event for a few years are familiar with the Shark, Stingray, Tempest and the Saber.

The Mackey design has not received too much attention, though there was one flown at VSC for several years.  The Junkers Gobbleswantz is fairly large (about 60 inch span), has twin booms and is a tricycle design.

Interesting topic.

Keith Trostle

[Bill Little]

Hi Keith,

Bart's Tempest and Bob's Sabre were the ones that immediately jumped into my mind.

BTW: Lampione's Sabre was the first foam wing stunt ship to win the Walker Trophy.

Bill <><

[Paul Smith]

From what I've seen, tricycles have a chance to score more points on both takeoffs and landings.



The weight and complexity issues tend to fade out on bigger airplanes and become prohibitive on small planes.  Very small planes (1/2 A and such) are better off with 1, zero-wheel gears.

[steve pagano]

 I was also wondering is the a formula to were the 2 main wheels get placed or u can just put them anywere under the wing?

[Randy Powell]

You want the main gear behind the center of gravity.

[Richard Grogan]

You want the main gear behind the center of gravity.....

So that the CG remains at the CG with the weight of the nose gear added...

[john e. holliday]

  Both types look very good while either flying or sitting on the ground.
  The good part of the tail dragger, is lightness,  The trike has one more large wheel and one more heavy steel strut. The bad part of the tail dragger is the tendency of the tail to continue to drop lower when the main gear hits the ground and this gives the wing a little more lift and tend to baloon back into the air.
  The trike's good point is that when the main gear hits the ground, the NOSE tends to continue on downward and this effectively REDUCES the wing life and reduces the tendency to baloon.  The bad part of the trike is the extra weight of an additional large wheel and strut.  Also it is somewhat more difficult to work a good cowl and fuel tank into a plane with a nose strut in the way.

  Just my opinion

  Bigiron

Bigiron, I like what you say about the extra weight, but,  I wish I was close enough to show you my Walter Umland kit of the P-39.  It is engineered with a nose strut and no removable cowl.  the engine basically hangs out in the open.  Also the fuel tank is removable when and if Brodak gets any 5.5 ounce tanks in.  Should have it ready for the Wichita contest.  DOC Holliday

[Paul Smith]

Answer, as close to the CG as possible, so it's on the verge of sitting on the tail.

I built a Jetco Sabre.  Per the kit, the main gear was too far aft.  When the plane touched down, it drove the nose gear into the ground so hard, I was always beefing it up.  If the CG is right on top of the mains, this won't happen.  With the main gear aft, the rotating moment (slamming down moment) gets huge.

[Bob Kruger]

I'm thinking of putting tricycle type landing gears on my 2 current projects i was wondering what are the goods and the bads to tail dragger's vs. tricycle type landing gears?
         
                           thanks in advance

Taildragger vs. Trike - interesting question.

Marvin Denny did a good summary in an earlier post.  I think there are two other aspects to look at as well.

IMHO, its harder to get a really smooth landing with a trike geared ship than with a tail dragger.  Because of the shorter distance between the nose gear and the main gear, there seems to be more a tendency to "bobble" a bit on landings than with a tail dragger.  The effect of a tail dragger gently "greasing" in a good landing is asthetically pleasing to some and may result in slightly higher scores.  This is purely subjective, as I have seen many good landings with trike gear.  For me personally, its easier to do get a good effect with a tail dragger.

On the other hand.... 

Years ago my club flew off a field that was, not, lets say, manicured.  In fact, it was quite rough.  I broke more than my share of props trying to negotiate that field.  My flying buddy, who had a ship of his own design named "Sidewinder" with a trike gear configuration, kept the same prop all year.   He had been flying longer than I had, and told me that he had gone to trike gear because he considered it better for negotiating a rougher field.  While some may debate that, my weekly drill was to buy and balance a couple of Top Flite 10-6s in preparation for that weekend's flying....(and his wasn't).

V/r

Bob