What are they? What factors cause them? How do you recover from them? I know they are easier to get into in a tailwheel plane, but I ask for the simple reason of increased knowledge.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAWa9uxtZj4

Check out that video of a relatively mild ground loop (no bent wings).

I know I am going to butcher this but i'll try. In tailwheel a/c the CG is located behind the main wheels. So when you touch down the with the aircraft pointed in any direction other than the direction the aircraft is tracking (ie....improper x-wind correction) there is a destabilizing moment induced on the aircraft. Not a huge deal on tricycle aircraft due to the CG being forward of the mains and the wheels absorbing the side load. Now imagine all that force behind the mains when the tailwheel touches down. The tailwheel acts as a huge lever due to its location so far behind the CG. Once the tail starts tracking around, momentum kicks and and physics does the rest. Clear as mud? My instructor would probably cringe if he saw this explanation of a ground loop...lol. Now groundloops are not always a bad thing. In the case of losing an engine and being force to put it down in a small clearing it can significantly reduce your land roll. Not the greatest thing but it sure beats hitting a tree and totaling your aircraft.

I can still hear my instructor saying "there are those who have, and those who will. Fly the airplane to the chalks!" If you want a fun challenge go get your tailwheel sign-off. I got mine when I was instructing and it was proabably more fun than any other flying I had done up to that point. It will make you a better pilot and bring a greater appreciation for x-wind controls even while taxiing.

If there is anyone who can offer a better explanation of this please do.

If you would like to know more check out this book. It will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about tailwheel aircraft.

http://www.pipercubforum.com/compleat.htm

 

I groundlooped my Luscombe. Didn't hurt anything.

 

The Compleat Taildragger by H.S. Plourde was the book I used to study the subject, it should be available used though it is out of print. It takes several chapters to explain everything, but you can get the picture in a few hours if you get the book.

Tailwheel takes more skill than tricycle to land successfully, and it is good training to learn them. They are the ideal aircraft for shortfield operations, and they are cheaper to build and maintain. I had a very shaky grasp of stick and rudder flying until I learned how to fly the J3 Cub. I have never ground looped but apparently it's not too bad if you don't scrape a wing or twist your neck. A greater and more damaging risk is actually that of running off the runway into a ditch since you have so little steering authority.

Tailwheel was the preferred design for piston fighter aircraft in WWII so the props could be large, and they are the best choice for short field and grassfield operations because they turn on a dime at the end of the runway, they have no nosewheel to drag in the mud, and they make it easy to keep your prop out of the dirt. I do not know of any purely aerodynamic reasons they are preferred for shortfield and grassfield, to me they fly a lot like similar tricycles.

Many people do not know that you can land a Skyhawk-type tricycle airplane like a Cub. Before the time of paved runways this was how people had to land them on the grass, and Skyhawks in particular had a 40 degree flap setting to facilitate fence hopping and ultra shortfield uses.

When you consider the simple construction of the tailwheel airplane they make the most sense in a rough environment due to the tougher tubular construction. Of course, later tailwheels usually had monocoque construction but the Supercub was tubular until the very end. And of course they have an aura of mystique as they are the airplane of such a vast portion of modern history.

 

The advantages to a tail dragger are few to none. While working in Alaska my boss proved to us all that the Cessna 206 beat our 185 in every category. When pressed for a short or ruff runway we took the 206 every time.

Nose wheel planes can rotate sooner, use less runway and survive gear impacts better since you land nose high and the mains are centered under the load better.

I have owned a taylorcraft for almost two decades and I can't stand the thing.

SkyHigh

 

Perhaps it's not tailwheel vs. tricycle per se, it's the cheaper-simpler construction of 30's era planes that makes them more popular for small-payload bushwork.

The only other thing I can think of is you can put a longer prop on the Cub, but it seems like if you lengthened the gear on a 206 you could put one on there too, assuming you didn't want to fly very far.

 

Fabric planes are not cheaper anymore. I couldn't find a good cub for under 40K on TAP the other day.

A cub has only one purpose in the bush and that is it can land and take off in the shortest distance. A stock and legally flown super cub from the 1970's can only Carry 15 lbs behind the back seat.

The main attraction to the cub is the coolness factor. In comparison to other AC types they are inferior to almost all. A Cessna 150 can carry 120lbs in back, cruse at 110MPH and can operate from very short places. For the money it is a much better bush plane but is uncool.

SkyHigh

 

Here's an a example-

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...rCub18ftTO.mpg

Lately they seem to qualify just as fun, and not profitable. Like you say, they are too expensive- TopCubs are getting about $190k as new.

http://www.cubcrafters.com/TopCub/pricing.aspx?id=2

I doubt they will sell many of them to professionals.

 

Skyhigh,I don't think You, nor would Bob Hoover do this in a 206.


http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...ar_landing.wmv

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...gravel_bar.wmv

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...ub_Landing.wmv


http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...ing_Teaser.wmv


I prefer tailwheels for bush flying.