In my distant memory from an armchair pilot's viewpoint - early powered aircraft were tail draggers. This put pilots having to sit high or look out the side around the engine I guess. But why?
Also tail draggers had to get moving to lift the tail requiring elevator control lest they pitch over. But why was this the configuration that would keep being used through two wars, when the wright flyer was also powered and launched in a level flight configuration?
Was CG an issue? Or AoA in those early wings and control surfaces?
And at which point in the history of aviation was it decided that aircraft would be better off level than tail down.
In fact that leads to a simole question, for DC-3 class aircraft - were they ever adjusted to have forward fuselage extension so they could be balanced?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Historical question .. tail dragging aircraft
Without much thinking a few points come into my mind:
Weight: A nose wheel needs to be much sturdier, especially on grass, soft fields. Thus adding a lot of weight.
Complexity: At the beginning they didn't even need brakes. The tail without a wheel created enough drag.
With upcoming retractable gear the reduction in complexity was still a very valid point.
Manouverability: A taildragger is much more manoeuvrable on ground. It can turn more or less on a point.
Propeller: On a aircraft with nosewheel, the propeller is much closer to the ground, thus increasing the risk to have ground contact on a uneven field.
The turning point was probably when more and more paved runways were built. Some advantages of the taildragger are not needed on a paved surface anymore. And it's more difficult to operate a taildragger on a hard surface when you loose the draging effect of the tailwheel in grass.
Weight: A nose wheel needs to be much sturdier, especially on grass, soft fields. Thus adding a lot of weight.
Complexity: At the beginning they didn't even need brakes. The tail without a wheel created enough drag.
With upcoming retractable gear the reduction in complexity was still a very valid point.
Manouverability: A taildragger is much more manoeuvrable on ground. It can turn more or less on a point.
Propeller: On a aircraft with nosewheel, the propeller is much closer to the ground, thus increasing the risk to have ground contact on a uneven field.
The turning point was probably when more and more paved runways were built. Some advantages of the taildragger are not needed on a paved surface anymore. And it's more difficult to operate a taildragger on a hard surface when you loose the draging effect of the tailwheel in grass.
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 21730
- Joined:
Re: Historical question .. tail dragging aircraft
boacvc10 wrote:In my distant memory from an armchair pilot's viewpoint - early powered aircraft were tail draggers. This put pilots having to sit high or look out the side around the engine I guess. But why?
Also tail draggers had to get moving to lift the tail requiring elevator control lest they pitch over. But why was this the configuration that would keep being used through two wars, when the wright flyer was also powered and launched in a level flight configuration?
Was CG an issue? Or AoA in those early wings and control surfaces?
And at which point in the history of aviation was it decided that aircraft would be better off level than tail down.
In fact that leads to a simole question, for DC-3 class aircraft - were they ever adjusted to have forward fuselage extension so they could be balanced?
"Balanced"? The DC-3 has all the balance it needs. It isn't really about tail up or tail down. When taking off tail draggers pitch forward at a certain speed to more or less level before rotation.
As glen says it was about ease of construction, weight savings, complexity and rougher fields, not about aerodynamics.
I'll add that conventional landing gear aircraft (tail draggers) are a bit trickier to manoeuvre on the ground compared to tricycle landing gear aircraf, and a bit trickier to land.
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 12400
- Joined:
Re: Historical question .. tail dragging aircraft
The “tricky” being the CoG is behind the pivot point on the ground, the tail naturally wants to become the front, especially in a crosswind. Operating a taildragger off grass is entirely different than on asphalt, the natural slippage of grass helps—A LOT. Airborne there’s no different.
Higher landing speeds, ease of handling made tricycle gear necessary.
Higher landing speeds, ease of handling made tricycle gear necessary.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests