I'm not saying that one shouldn't hold back an opposing view. I'm saying that when Mike has an idea, he'll find a way to invalidate anyone else's information. At this point you could say "I like eating bananas with my breakfast cereal" and he'll find a way to say you're wrong about bush flying.

Why do you think tail wheel airplanes can't use brakes?

On a nose wheel aircraft, the harder you brake, the more weight transfers to the nose wheel and unloads the mains and you get tire slip and loss of traction.

On a tail wheel airplane, the wheels in front mean as the tail comes up, more weight gets transferred to the main wheels and you get more braking.

In my 170, I could brake very hard and not put it on the nose. If I braked that hard in a 172, I'd flat spot both main tires for sure.

Watch the Valdez STOL competitions, those guys are hard on the brakes after touch down. If you do it wrong, you can put it on the nose, that's true, but that's evidence of just how hard you CAN brake in a tail wheel airplane, not that you can't use them if done properly.

Mike C.

And when they get there they can park next to a Cherokee or RV that is wearing small tires with wheel pants.

I think a IFR capable one would be a great option. I had no idea it was convertible, having both gear options really makes it attractive.

Why do you think tail wheel airplanes can't use brakes?

On a nose wheel aircraft, the harder you brake, the more weight transfers to the nose wheel and unloads the mains and you get tire slip and loss of traction.

On a tail wheel airplane, the wheels in front mean as the tail comes up, more weight gets transferred to the main wheels and you get more braking.

In my 170, I could brake very hard and not put it on the nose. If I braked that hard in a 172, I'd flat spot both main tires for sure.

Watch the Valdez STOL competitions, those guys are hard on the brakes after touch down. If you do it wrong, you can put it on the nose, that's true, but that's evidence of just how hard you CAN brake in a tail wheel airplane, not that you can't use them if done properly.

Mike C.

Years ago, friend of mine with a small Piper dealership decided he needed a Super Cub in the rental fleet so mere mortals could learn to fly a “real” airplane. I didn’t think it was a great idea. But he said he knew some older, “experienced “ instructors to teach in it. This on a 10,000’ former SAC runway.

First one lasted 6 months, second about 9 iirc. Ground looped, folded gear, broken wing, bent fuse, the works.

Tailwheels are fun and challenging, but better on grass.

I’m still not really getting the nature of the argument here. I think it’s fine that they made a tricycle gear Cub. Maybe it will get more folks into flying; that’s always a good thing. But I’m pretty confident that if you ask the manufacturer which of their aircraft is more capable for true backcountry (not runways) operations, they will point you to the conventional gear Cub. Yes they can tip over with heavy braking, the cross-wind issue has more to do with being light than being a taildragger. I often come home in the afternoon with winds gusting 25-30kts across the runway. The Husky does fine, just land into the wind on a taxiway or grass near the hangar. A 1300# tricycle gear plane with a high lift 36’ fabric covered wing would face the same issues as my plane.
I flew today for a couple hours. Did some waterskiing, landed on some meadows at 10,000 feet with rodent dens and solidified mud ruts from ATV’s that had been operating there earlier. The 31” tires at 8psi just absorbed it all. Not a place for a small nose tire that’s being jammed into the ground by the force of braking and trying to dive into the first badger hole it finds. To each their own. I hope they sell a lot of the tricycle gear Cubs, but many will probably be used a lot like those fancy Range Rovers and Lexus SUV’s I see cruising around town. And that’s OK, but let’s not pretend that the aircraft are all equally capable.

I'm not saying that one shouldn't hold back an opposing view. I'm saying that when Mike has an idea, he'll find a way to invalidate anyone else's information. At this point you could say "I like eating bananas with my breakfast cereal" and he'll find a way to say you're wrong about bush flying.

I do, too.

But...

Don't expect to take it everywhere the tailwheel Cub can go. That's the message.

And to take it to the limits of where it can go, the skill set is still pretty high, much higher than mastering a tailwheel.

Mike C.

You can brake as hard as the pitch moment allows, air flow or not. As you lose elevator, you have to reduce to maintain pitch.


Always a counter example when someone does it wrong.

But a nose wheel doesn't prevent it:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/7ppoJrlc5Z0[/youtube]


Quite likely, or simply not braking too hard.

Pilots have been flipping and ground looping nose wheel airplanes, too.

Point is, you DO have braking, and it CAN be more effective than a nose wheel airplane due to weight on the mains, but it DOES require the right touch to use all of it. That touch, BTW, is the same as using all of the nose wheel brakes WITHOUT flat spotting the tires, knowing how much to use and when.

Mike C.

As someone who aspires to do some "backcountry" type of flying someday but is ignorant of the lines of demarcation of that definition I'm curious.

Other than interior Alaska, Canadian true working bush flying getting gear and folks in and out of wilderness, what percent of pilots really fly in an out of river gravel bars, alpine meadows etc. and how many are simply backcountry airstrips of varying degrees of roughness or maybe the occasional really nice gravel bar? Are we really talking edge cases and maybe a little elitism here for "true backcountry" as opposed to "backcountry"?

30 years ago I flew from Yakatat AK in to a fishing camp on the coast to do some Sockeye fishing with my Grandfather in a 206. We landed on the beach and the 206 did just fine with three guys and gear for a week. A Cub would have taken at least three trips I'm sure. Was that a "true backcountry" landing or just a "backcountry" landing?

I have no real opinion of the new Cub. As mentioned, it looks a lot like a TriPacer for which I have an affinity for ever since I built the Monogram model kit as a kid (bet a reissue doesn't come with the hunter with rifle and dead mountain lion ) but I do consider more airplanes, more pilots and more options good for all of us.

Sounds like a fun trip...definitely true backcountry (IMO). Landing on a beach where there is no actual airstrip. But comparing a 206 to a Cub isn’t really instructive as there is far more different between them than the type of landing gear. They are a different class of plane. A conventional gear plane more typical of the size might be a Helio or Beaver. Or if slightly larger perhaps a modern Kodiak. If you can land a 206 (and you know that in advance) then it is clearly the better tool (faster, hauls more, simple to operate). If you are going to a tight spot and you don’t know what the conditions will be, then 3 trips in a Cub, Champ, Husky might be necessary. All depends on the mission. As I wrote earlier, the professional organization I visited with when doing backcountry skiing in Alaska for a week had 3 types from a 3 passenger cub all the way up to a 12 passenger Otter...all conventional, but that’s because of where and how they operated. On some days they would pile all of us in the Otter, other days when the snow was deep and the LZ tight, we would do several trips in the Cub (with two skiers piled on top of each other laying in back with our backpacks and a single seatbelt across both of us...”legal” up there is quite different than down here)
I think the main argument here is just that a light conventional gear plane offers some advantages over a tricycle gear plane of the same size when the going gets tough. When a comment was made earlier in the thread that most backcountry ops have switched to tricycle gear aircraft, I think it got some hackles up because as with so many other things in aviation...it depends.

When using this method for takeoff or landing it doesn't matter if you have a nosewheel or tailwheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCtrzDrm2AI

Here we go with more dogmas.

- A jet should not be built with single engine!
- A backcountry plane should not have a nose wheel!

Turns out there is plenty of uses for both to make them a compelling package for many folks.

Is it really about mastering something or more about functionality?
I’d love a tailwheel and have the endorsement but my 206 is much more practical than a 185, although certainly not as much fun.
They are targeting a demographic that doesn’t want to be limited by all the tailwheel bugaboos.