Tri Gear or Tail Wheel?

[tom89]

Which do you prefer? Tail wheel or tri gear? And why?

[Dorsal]

I like my "trycycle", not too say it is better or worse but it does make landing and taxiing a relaxing experience. This topic inevitably leads to the realization it's mostly a matter of personal taste. It also works just fine off the pavement:)

[rogerh12]

I highly suggest you ask your insurance company about what the price difference is between insuring a tail wheel plane and a nose gear plane before deciding !!!!!

Roger

[kmach]

I have a taildragger , I have never flown the tri gear version. I picked a taildragger for the simple reason I want to fly in the winter with wheel skis. It is very simple to rig the taildragger with skis, I don't think it is even feasible with a castering nosewheel to setup a ski configuration that will float on any amount of snow depth, but I am not totally familiar with the tri gear. I guess an option for deeper snow and tri gear would be full lotus floats, people with them say they work well on snow !

[akarmy]

Why pick just one when you can have both in the same plane?

http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/picture.php?albumid=100&pictureid=1313

http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/picture.php?albumid=100&pictureid=2101

[Monocock]

You wouldn't do this to your mountain bike.....



So why do it to your Kitfox.....!

[t j]

You're playing with fire.;)

[DanB]

This thread topic always tends to end up in negative comments back and forth. Feel free to answer the question without placing a thorn under the other kids saddle. This has been a public service announcement :D

[Monocock]

Touchy !!!!

[DanB]

Touchy !!!!

Correction...responsible moderator doing his job :cool:

Side note: Personally I like the looks of the tail dragger over the trigear. I have no tail wheel time so my decision hinged on doing the training wheel now, paying lower insurance, then picking up my tail wheel cert and sticking the little wheel in the back. I like the idea of being able to land in remote spots, not to mention becoming a better pilot learning how to move my feet.

Many of the guys here in the Desert Fox Squadron have endless hours as tail dragger pilots but simply choose to use what is proven to be "safer" with the missions they fly... not a bunch of off-field landings. That being said, many of them still land in the "rough", keep the training wheel up, and do very well. To each his own.

[Slyfox]

all kidding aside, I have both. But, I know a fella right now that took 18 yrs to build his RV6 Tail wheel. He is in a real pickel right now because he's trying to get his endorsement and is having a real hard time. Seems it's a real bugger to find someone to give him instruction. Right now he can't use his plane, need to fly off the 40, and there is no airplanes in the local area period for flying instruction in a tail wheel. So off he goes down to portland area for training with Mike Seagar. 8.5 Hrs later is is not ready yet, he has to go back down for more. Here his airplane sits waiting for him to get ready.

Ya, tail wheel is cool, my model 4 is tail wheel. I love it. My RV is nose. Don't any of you call me a sissy. I'll show you a thing or two that will prove you are the sissy.

But, when it comes to practicality, that tail wheel looses out big time. Lets say you had a ground loop. Oopps, Now the FAA gets involved, you are asked for a flight test, which the faa will do. Your airplane is broken, now the big challenge happens, how do I do my flight test that the faa wants. If you can't produce a tail wheel airplane your now back on student status, yup that's what happens. Those darn tail wheels will give you trouble.

Regular flying, not a problem, landing, that's another thing, it will humble the best, so be aware.

lastly, I love my airplane. can't argue that one.

[Monocock]

The KF was designed as a lightweight STOL machine for unmade strips and fields. Its whole ethos is based around ruggedness and practicality. That's what it became a success around, and continues to do so.

The conventional gear not only looks better, but it allows the owner/flyer to operate the a/c in the manner it was designed to be used. There are no real weak points and the standard tyres add further to the practicality of the machine from unmade strips.

I have nothing against the tricycle version other than it dilutes what the Kitfox is all about. It's a bit like putting slick road tyres on a Land Rover. Yes, it's still a Kitfox on paper but....

I have answered the OP's question with my honest views.

[FoxDB]

I have a Kitfox 1 and a Whitman Tailwind both with tailwheel. When I bought the KF 1 I had no TW time and during my transition training was tempted to swap to Tri (just could not get it through my head). But after about 4 hours it finally clicked. 2 years later I purchased my Tailwind (a decidedly more difficult one to land). Yet about half a dozon landing and I was OK. I would not think of changing the KF to trigear however a handful like the Tailwind could take a load off with the little wheel in the front.
Dave

[DesertFox4]

I'm glad the design has matured and evolved? I like the fact that customers can choose the features and gear configuration that speaks to them as akarmy said and so beautifully illustrated in photos earlier.
With the current models you don't have to permanently choose one over the other. You can start out in tri-gear configuration then switch the nose wheel to the little end and spit in the eye of the laws of physics on every take off and landing.;)

Mono- if you could fly my model 4, I doubt the first word you'd use to describe its performance would be "diluted".



Tail wheel aircraft require a specific set of skills only related to safe taxiing and transition from taxi to take off speed and then in reverse on landing. This skill set is easily learned with good instruction and will make you a tail wheel aircraft pilot, not a better pilot. Afterwards, you will get a log book endorsement, not The Distinguished Flying Cross.:rolleyes:
2508

[Slyfox]

I don't think it takes that much on take off in the skill level, only because my aircraft has so much power it's off in seconds.:D you wink and you're flying.:D Don't get me wrong, i'll never think of putting the little wheel on the front of my fox.

[whitewulfe]

I tend to prefer the look of the taildragger on some models, and with others, I prefer the look of trigear.

As for a preference, well, I'll be silly and say my preference is for aircraft with skids! ...Got more time riding in them as a passenger than any general aviation aircraft out there - sadly the most I've done in a GA fixed wing is sit in it *laughs nervously*

[Monocock]

Steve

Nobody here has suggested tailwheel aircraft are more difficult to fly, just different.

[DesertFox4]

Nobody here has suggested tailwheel aircraft are more difficult to fly, just different.Just wait Mono. Oh heck. No need to wait, someone already did. It always happens that way.

Maybe someday I'll have to give tail dragging aircraft a try.
Might be too old to learn though it does sound challenging.

[Monocock]

Not many years ago all people learned on conventional gear (tailwheel) aircraft because that was the only option. Mr Cessna decided to launch the Landomatic option which was preferred by schools as they deemed it to be easier for students to learn on and more forgiving in crosswinds.

I still think tailwheel flying is not specifically harder, just different. It gives the pilot something else to think about. Yes, during the conversion from trike to tailwheel the student sometimes finds it tricky for the first few hours, but then the same applys to their first landing with a nosewheel or the first Navex etc.

The control inputs become completely second nature very quickly. Having not flown a nosewheel aircraft for 10 years I reckon I'd find it tricky for a while if I did.

My comments about "dilution" were just about the dilution of the STOL capabilities of the Kitfox that the nosewheel creates. I do think that a tailwheel machine offers better short field performance and is more robust in the field.

So, not necessarily harder to fly, but it allows the design to be used to it's full potential and that's the reason I like the small wheel at the back.

Finally, yes, the option to have both is pretty clever. However, I'm just not sure I'd use nosewheel set-up very often.

[jtpitkin06]

Just when you thought this 100 year old question was beat to death,(along with the answers) someone asks, "If I put floats on the aircraft, is it a Bi gear, Quad gear or a taildragger?"



JP

[whitewulfe]

Just when you thought this 100 year old question was beat to death,(along with the answers) someone asks, "If I put floats on the aircraft, is it a Bi gear, Quad gear or a taildragger?"



JP

I'd say it's sexy pulling up to the dock - taildragger or trigear won't make it to the dock *grins*

[DesertFox4]

Just when you thought this 100 year old question was beat to death;)

Just as every take off will result in the aircraft returning back to Earth, these conversations will quickly decline into " if you're not a tail wheel pilot your not a real pilot" statements. Maybe because "conventional" gear were prevalent early on. That's all there was to fly so you had to learn the ways of the little wheel. Maybe everyone back then were just born better pilots. I doubt it.
Anyway, my conclusion after over 2,000 hours in Kitfox's (more of that time in tail wheel Kitfox's) is they are one heck of fun flying aircraft no matter where you mount your wheels. Just please don't tell me I can't have fun in nose wheel configuration. I already have.

I find there isn't an iota of difference once you leave the ground in flying characteristics. If you choose nose gear you can still go a lot of the places the tail wheel can go but not everywhere they can. You have to be more careful as it is not as robust as say a Cessna 206 nose gear. Three things I can think of you shouldn't do in a nose gear is land on very soft terrain. Land in tall grass or weeds unless you are completely familiar and know there are no hidden obstacles or animal holes and don't try to water skim with a nose gear. :eek:
You'll will love the ground handling characteristics of the nose gear. Much less susceptible to wind gusts and visibility is much improved. Directional control is more stable during take off and landing.

I'm quite certain that the most fun you can have with an airplane is to mount it on floats. I'd love to find out for myself before I get too old.

[HighWing]

I always enjoy these discussions. I tend to sense a bit of defensiveness in some of the posts as well as some pridefullness. I guess my feelings tend toward the latter as some of the wording used to describe the transition gives a feeling of done that, but then again, I know there are pilots better than I am who do not have the endorsement (see below). Regarding the evolution of the design. No real problem with that with the exception that all of this evolving has changed the basic mission of the Kitfox by adding incremental weight to the point that we hear of empty weighs from the high 500 pounds to the low 900 pounds under an identical Riblet wing.

I know that when I bought my first kit in 1993 the factory was shipping 40 kits a month. I have been told that before that the shipments would reach the 75 per month level, all tail wheel. I don't know what that means, but....

I learned in conventional gear. For all I knew it was how you flew an airplane. My transition was from car and motorcycle to "airplane". I hadn't done many wheel landings, so when I was transitioning to nose wheel, I was glad for the little skiddy thing on the bottom of the tail. My wife drives a hybrid - the power steering is electric rather than fluid driven. It requires a bit of a shove to get it to power up, then doesn't self center after a curve. I have to be more attentive driving her car - it is just different - it is all she drives and tells me she is used to it.

I am reluctant to bring in the pilot skill level thing, but here goes. I once had an employee whose father failed his first four check rides. Then on one of his first passenger flights as PIC, he killed himself and his three passengers on departure. I think skill level is a factor. Like the builders of our airplanes, we as pilots are not all the same. To this point, I think I do pretty well at what I do. I hear of other Kitfox pilots doing things I sometimes wish I could do - light aerobatics, extreme short field stuff like behind the power curve full stall landings on river beds and the famous uphill landing at Mile High. (I tried that only backward when I destroyed my first Model IV in an emergency landing. I opted to approach over the power lines that made my landing down hill - In a clearing surrounded by oak trees. I couldn’t find the ground and finally had to plant it rather than challenge the trees. It was poor processing of the information and an error in judgment.) Some of us are Yeagers or Sullengergers, some are more like me, and hopefully none are like my employees father. When helping with my neighbors Lancair IV, a lot of guys were dying in their Lancairs and some still do. I had a discussion on line with a guy who was already flying. He was ex military and felt that anyone could fly a Lancair IV. I tried to point out to him that he was a product of a very selective pilot training program and as such was very likely an above average pilot with superior training. He didn't buy it. To him, it was easy and anyone could do it. It was like if you can afford the kit, and have the endorsements you can fly it. I don’t think so and my friend doesn’t either. We talk about it a lot.

In short, I love my Kitfox. I wonder sometimes why anyone would go elsewhere, but they do, and they also love their choices. Tailwheel or tricycle? Consider your mission and everything else and love your choice.

Lowell