HiIf taildraggers are so hard to control, why were taildraggers so popular for so many aircraft for so long (e.g. from the birth of flight to 1945)? Why stick with a design that is so much harder to control? Was there a practical reason?

HiIf taildraggers are so hard to control, why were taildraggers so popular for so many aircraft for so long (e.g. from the birth of flight to 1945)? Why stick with a design that is so much harder to control? Was there a practical reason?

I LOVE talking about "conventional gear" aircraft. The most fun endorsement I have.I'll list a couple reasons I can think of:-Prop clearance on unimproved runways.-Higher angle of attack with less work. (-)Equates to better takeoff performanceThe controllability of the aircraft depends more on per-model characteristics then the general fact that it's a tail dragger. Some have closer coupled landing gear. Some CGs are much closer to the main gear (pivot point) then others. Those are the main factors to the difficulty of the aircraft's handling, especially within conventional geared a/c.

Taildraggers are structurally simpler because the main gear has to be ahead of the wing spar (multi-engine aircraft), i.e. right at the engine nacelle, a mighty convenient place to put the gear requiring little extra support structure (because the engine must be supported anyway), as compared to behind the wing spar where no support would exist were it not for the main gear. The DC-3 and B-15 are good examples.Also nose gears, as compared to tail wheels, are heavy, complicated to extend/retract, fragile and require an anti-shimmy damper to avoid filing a flight plan of their own.Cheers,- jahman.

fragile and requires an anti-shimmy damper to avoid filing a flight plan of it's own.- jahman.

Didn't even think about that! Very true. Usually the first thing to go to crap on an aircraft is the shimmy damper. Makes your teeth chatter and can also lead to severe issues!

Very fun to fly and only a problem if you get behind the aircraft or attempt to fly it in conditions above it's capabilities in wind. All airplanes have these problems, taildraggers are a little less forgiving though. I got my endorsement part of my commercial and spin training in a 7GCBC citabria. After all that I still suck at heel brakes. Once I get to a computer I'll upload some pictures of my lovely.

Currently working on my taildragger endorsement in a Glastar...

These were taken six years ago now when I got my endorsement. I think it was about 105° on this day.The plane in all her glory.

Citabrias are fun! But not to be out done :( :Me in the front. We fight over that seat because it's quieter and more comfortable and has better visibility.Posing after landing. It was cold this day. About 45F when we pulled the plane in the hangar.To the OP. This is a cool topic I never gave much thought to. I think the answers are simple though, and jahman covered it.

Another taildragger here, with steering via differential braking currently INOP...(Look, Ma! No engine!) :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Another taildragger here, with steering via differential braking currently INOP...(Look, Ma! No engine!) :-)

Also, no TBO to worry about, zero fuel costs, and best of all......zero danger of losing body parts when 'not proping...' :(

A taildragger configuration looks aerodynamically cleaner, too.Does anybody know of any taildragger jets? I've heard of the Supermarine Attacker and the He 178, but other than that I have not heard of any modern taildragger jets (aside from the U-2).

...Does anybody know of any taildragger jets?...

The Caproni A-21SJ Calif Attack Fighter, (videos

,

and

), was designed during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and is limited to 0.2 Mmo due to lack of wing sweepback. It was very fuel efficient. Approval for carrier ops is pending.Cheers,- jahman.

The Caproni A-21SJ Calif Attack Fighter, (videos

,

and

), was designed during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and is limited to 0.2 Mmo due to lack of wing sweepback. It was very fuel efficient. Approval for carrier ops is pending.Cheers,- jahman.

That second video in Ephrata is where we took all our students at the college for touch and goes. My wifes family owns a large ranch to the north by about 15 miles and when they do their annual race we always go out into the fields and find a few downed gliders. The pilots are always extremely happy to be found.

That second video in Ephrata is where we took all our students at the college for touch and goes. My wifes family owns a large ranch to the north by about 15 miles and when they do their annual race we always go out into the fields and find a few downed gliders. The pilots are always extremely happy to be found.

Seems like they get some nice soaring there, according to here.I know of a farmer that charges gliders a fee for landing out on his field. He always collects, too! (Fat padlock on the gate, not trying to give you any ideas here...)Glider pilots are always happy to be found because they consider themselves lucky to be retrieved (unless they fly a rental, in which case retrieval is guaranteed :-)Did you go up in one of them engineless aircraft? Recommended! (Old, but still worth a try: Pilot: "Emergency! Emergency! I have no engine power!"; ATC: "Can you try restarting the engine?"; Pilot: "Negative! I have no engine!" :-)Cheers,- jahman.

If I remember correctly, some of the first aircraft (Curtiss Pushers and Waterman's Whatsit to name a few) had tricycle gear. When did aircraft designers decide to make the switch, and what was the first aircraft to display tailwheel design? Bleriot's IX?

I LOVE talking about "conventional gear" aircraft. The most fun endorsement I have.I'll list a couple reasons I can think of:-Prop clearance on unimproved runways.-Higher angle of attack with less work. (-)Equates to better takeoff performanceThe controllability of the aircraft depends more on per-model characteristics then the general fact that it's a tail dragger. Some have closer coupled landing gear. Some CGs are much closer to the main gear (pivot point) then others. Those are the main factors to the difficulty of the aircraft's handling, especially within conventional geared a/c.