True. But it’s hardly a necessity. 30 years ago most of the places folks were flying for hire or as missionaries in 185’s and claiming it was tailwheel-only territory - all you’ll find at those same destinations today are 206’s.

Jeff, I agree that both nose draggers and tail draggers can be back country capable. My position is that a lack of a tailwheel endorsement shouldn’t be considered much of a handicap. Lots of people fly tailwheels, it’s easy and fun! In my opinion, like most things, it’s not harder or easier, it’s just different, and not even too different.

Have a read through some of the material on the Zenith website. There's some moderately complicated technical discussion and Chris Heintz makes a pretty good case for tricycle gear on his STOL airplanes. With the slats on the 701 wing, the airplane has to pitch up at a pretty extreme angle on takeoff to present the wing at a high enough angle of attack. To achieve the same in a tricycle gear configuration of the same airplane, it would look like the STOL contest Cubs, with cartoonishly large main gear, a very nose-high stance, and a pretty ridiculous deck angle when the airplane is parked.

Different horses for different courses, there's more than one way to skin a cat...



If you generally enjoy reading about why a designer chose A instead of B, then you'll probably enjoy the articles on there.


The OV-10 was also a nose dragger, back country, STOL airplane.

What an absurd assertion. There's not a TW pilot on earth who can't proficiently fly nosewheel. Try putting a nosewheel pilot in a cub, different story for about 10 hours.

Take a pilot out of the airplane for a year. The nosewheel? Getting back on a bicycle. The tailwheel? Good luck if you don't stay current.

How about the adverse yaw characteristics of the average nosewheel vs the average tailwheel? How about maximum performance breaking without nosing over? How about crosswind landings? For a dozen reasons, it's just asinine to classify the TW as "not harder ... just different."

-J

Ah yes, the common ‘only super pilots can fly tailwheel’ position.

No one is saying that. But the argument that they are indistinguishable from a nosewheel, is something no insurance company is going to agree with.

When did I they they were indistinguishable? All I said was that anyone can learn tailwheel. It’s not hard. I’d recommend tailwheel training to anyone, it’s just plain fun!

Yes, just plain fun! I’ll recommend tailwheel training for everyone

I would have to say tailwheel landings are a bit harder though.

Maybe better put would be to say that tailwheel landings take more focus.
I have made darn near perfect wheel landings with 15mph+ crosswinds.

It’s those 7-10 mph crosswind landings where I forget I am flying a tailwheel that can get a bit embarrassing.

Jeff:

I plan on taking a demo flight in the super duty, will let you know how it does.

Our roads here in Texas have 75-85 mph speed limits. So I am hoping the Zenith at minimum can outpace my pickup truck in cruise flight.

KJ

Zlin Norden anyone? At 4:00 in this video. https://youtu.be/5Olmfj7O4Ec

Retractable slats like this plane has would greatly help the cruise speed.

KJ

Retractable slats like this plane has would greatly help the cruise speed.

KJ

That's a bit like saying flaps would help a Cub's stall speed (cruise too).

Not trying to be a smart aleck about it (no, really), both statements are an expression of the old saying, "fast/cheap/reliable- pick two."

That's a bit like saying flaps would help a Cub's stall speed (cruise too).

Not trying to be a smart aleck about it (no, really), both statements are an expression of the old saying, "fast/cheap/reliable- pick two."

Jim:

Zenith has a cruiser model with the slats removed from the STOL wing. It adds 18 mph to the cruise speed.

18 mph is a significant increase on a 100 mph plane.

If you could keep the STOL performance and increase cruise 18 mph by retracting the slats, I would.

KJ