When you look at old movies or planes in museums, why did the older prop planes sit on its wheels at an angle as opposed to resting horizontally?
Because they’re mostly tailwheel configuration? As opposed to a tricycle arrangement mostly used today. I assume it has something to do with them having less break power, and they required larger propellers than modern aircraft. Nose high allows for a larger diameter prop, and it’s not going to plow the nose to the ground when slowing down if the breaks are less effective (or non-existent in really old ones). Modern aircraft tend to have a nose wheel to keep them from tipping over when breaking… and for better visibility and ease of maneuvering while on the ground.
Tail wheels aren’t unheard of even today, they’re just kinda rare.
Those are known as tail-draggers, still made today. They have two wheels forward of the center of gravity, and a skid or wheel in the rear. For planes that don’t have retractable landing gear, this method weighs less, and creates less drag. It takes more skill to take off and land since the tail of the plane has to be brought up close to level before take-off, and let down gently on landing. These planes can also land on rougher landing strip also. Plenty of planes are still made this way, and some even have the option of selecting the landing gear type.
As I noted above, there will be no prop diameter advantage. Planes are made to take off from a near level orientation, and landing is actually more difficult than with tricycle gear because you are balancing on two wheels instead of three.
Are you referring to conventional “taildragger” landing gear? From the wiki entry…
Advantages
The tailwheel configuration offers several advantages over the tricycle landing gear arrangement.[2]
Due to its smaller size the tailwheel has less parasite drag than a nosewheel, allowing the conventional geared aircraft to cruise at a higher speed on the same power. Tail wheels are less expensive to buy and maintain than a nosewheel. If a tailwheel fails on landing, the damage to the aircraft will be minimal. This is not the case in the event of a nosewheel failure, which usually results in propeller damage. Tailwheel aircraft are easier to man-handle on the ground and, due to their lower tail, they will fit into some hangars more easily.[2][4]
Due to the increased propeller clearance on tail wheel aircraft less stone chip damage will result from operating a conventional geared aircraft on rough or gravel airstrips. Because of the way airframe loads are distributed while operating on rough ground, tail wheel aircraft are better able to sustain this type of use over a long period of time, without cumulative airframe damage occurring.[2]
Tail wheel aircraft are also more suitable for operation on skis.[2]
Disadvantages
The conventional landing gear arrangement does have some disadvantages, compared to the nose wheel equipped aircraft.[2]
Tail wheel aircraft are much more subject to “nose-over” accidents, due to main wheels becoming stuck in holes or injudicious application of brakes by the pilot.[2]
Conventional geared aircraft are much more susceptible to ground looping. A ground loop occurs when directional control is lost on the ground and the tail of the aircraft passes the nose, in some cases completing a full circle. This event can result in damage to the aircraft’s undercarriage, tyres, wingtips and propeller. Avoiding ground loops requires increased pilot training and skill.[1][2]
Tail wheel aircraft generally suffer from poorer forward visibility on the ground, compared to nose wheel aircraft. In some cases this necessitates “S” turning on the ground to allow the pilot to see while taxiing.[2]
Tail wheel aircraft are more difficult to taxi during high wind conditions, due to the higher angle of attack on the wings. They also suffer from lower crosswind capability and in some wind conditions may be unable to use crosswind runways or single-runway airports.[2]
Conventional geared aircraft require more training time for student pilots to master. This was a large factor in the move to nose wheel-equipped training aircraft by most manufacturers in the 1950s.[2]
Landing is not that hard - you typically touch down (properly) nose-up, since you are bleeding off airspeed and have a higher angle of attack. Occasionally you can bang the tail of C150 if you land too slow at a high angle of attack (and sort of stall out just above the ground). I’ve never flown a taildragger but I understand a wide-stance taildragger is also at risk of groundloop in difficult wind conditions.
A front gear (as others pointed out) is more fragile than a tail-wheel, and creates a lot more drag. With a taildragger you can put the main wheels far enough forward that braking should not make the plane go nose-down. With tricycle, if the main wheels are too far back there is excess weight on the nosewheel strut.
The “Balance” on takepff is not difficult. Once the plane gets going fast, the tail will fly and the aircraft will rotate to the horizontal position; ditto, on landing the tail will lower as the airspeed bleeds off. With both configurations, during takeoff the plan must be rotated to a take-off angle once the airspeed reaches the recommended “rotation speed”.
A plane going fast enough will actually lift off at a relatively horizontal angle of attack, but to set the right rate of climb (and maybe clear the fence and those telephone wires down there) it’s a good idea to pull back on the yoke until the plane reaches the right rate of climb.
Tailwheel pilot checking in.
The tail comes up by itself during take-off, it requires no special attention to get it to do that (I say, glossing over details and exceptions to typical take off and land procedures - we’re talking Standard Operating Procedure here).
What takes more skills is handling the tendency of such airplanes to swap the position of nose and tail. Their directional stability while on the ground is notably less than tricycle gear airplanes (in the air, they’re pretty much the same).
Proper landing technique on a tricycle (nosewheel) airplanes is actually two wheels touch down first, then the third (nose) wheel. Touching down all three wheels at once with nosegear is considered VERY bad form and greatly increases the risk of damage to the plane.
With tailwheels, not only is landing with the main two wheels first acceptable, you can also do a “three-point” landing where all three wheels touch down more or less simultaneously. Three-point landings are routinely taught during tail wheel training and are considered both acceptable and safe when done properly. So I think you got that just a tad backward.
True.
[quote]
Conventional geared aircraft are much more susceptible to ground looping. A ground loop occurs when directional control is lost on the ground and the tail of the aircraft passes the nose, in some cases completing a full circle. This event can result in damage to the aircraft’s undercarriage, tyres, wingtips and propeller. Avoiding ground loops requires increased pilot training and skill.[/quot]e
It also, in my experience, requires increase attention during the landing, take off and, taxi operations. Taxiing too fast, inattention to crosswinds, and poor braking technique can all lead to ground loops. On a really bad day you can get all three at once.
Some of them also have poorer visibility while in the air as well as on the ground. this is usually due to huge, round engines blocking the forward view or weird design flaws in the earlier airplanes. Lindbergh’s Spirit of St. Louis had absolute crap forward visibility because they put a huge gas tank in front of the cockpit.
By the way - “high winds” may be surprisingly small by other standards. And even in a dead clam they require more attention to safely taxi than tricycle gear airplanes.
ALL taildraggers are at higher risk of a groundloop than a tricycle gear airplane. Some designs are more susceptible than others, but usually a wider stance makes them more stable on the ground, not less (though I’m sure there are exceptions). At least in my admittedly limited experience in flying taildraggers.
Actually, with a sufficiently sudden and hard application of brakes you can nose-over just about any taildragger.
Not always, depends on the airplane. Quite a few of the small single-engine prop planes do not require rotation and will happily take off once sufficient speed is reached. When I have sufficient runway I usually let the airplane fly when it’s ready, without rotation (unless that design specifically calls for it). Short and soft fields are a different matter - there you do need rotation.
Again, depends somewhat on the design. I’ve flown a couple that self-launch almost automatically at the best climb airspeed (especially if you have them trimmed out real nice). In any case, it’s not like you’d be hauling back on the stick/yoke with a great force anyhow - it’s a gentle tug, if that much.
How do you explain all the bent and broken props from pilots that didn’t have tailwheel experience?
Or the broken skids, and scraped tails?
I didn’t mean to imply a night and day difference in skill levels, but I’ve seen the resulting damage. And heard numerous warnings to get checked out with a tailwheel on the runway if you only have tri-gear experience.
To be clear: IANA a pilot, but I know plenty and have spent my time in the hangars.
The skill required with handling a tail-dragger on the ground is not so much in having to lift the tail up but that the setup is inherently unstable. The centre of gravity (CofG) through which the thrust of the aircraft acts is behind the main wheels which act as a pivot point on the ground. If the aircraft starts to swing in a particular direction it will want to keep swinging and the further it has swung the more readily it will keep going. Once the centre of gravity has swung passed the outside main wheel there is very little that can be done to recover the situation. Even with brakes applied on the outside wheel the CofG is essentially passed the point of no return and will continue to swing. The result is similar to a car skidding out of control and is known as a “ground loop”. Prompt and accurate rudder inputs must be made to keep the thing straight when taking off. By comparison the tricycle undercarriage design puts the CofG in front of the main wheels and when taking-off the thrust acting through the CofG self corrects any developing swing. Controlling a tail-dragger is like trying to balance a pole on the palm of your hand while controlling a tricycle undercarriage aircraft is like holding the pole up from the top.
So that’s one “problem” with tail-draggers. The other major problem is that the nose attitude on the ground results in limited forward visibility especially in single engine aircraft with the engine in front of the cockpit and tandem seat aircraft that are flown from the rear due to centre of gravity issues. Some are worse than others, aircraft like the Cessna C180 are flown from the front and have a downward sloping nose. The pilot can probably see the horizon and a little bit of runway directly in front of them when the tail is on the ground. Then there are aircraft like the Pitts Special which are flown from the back seat on two seat models and have a long straight nose. When sitting in the back of a Pitts with the tail on the ground the fuselage extends out from you at an angle towards the sky. The horizon cuts through the nose well below the top of the cowling. The bottom wing further obscures any meaningful view and you’re left with little triangles of useful view either side of the nose and above the bottom wing. To taxi one of these you need to make deliberate S-turns to clear the way ahead. To take-off you need to develop a keen sense of what’s happening using just your peripheral vision. Even once the tail is up the horizon only just sits above the nose cowling. Landing is typically done in the three-point attitude, that is with the main and tails wheels touching at the same time, so when landing you are using just your peripheral vision again. Add to that the inherent instability of the tail-wheel configuration and you have an aircraft that requires a certain amount of skill. It is skills that the vast majority of pilots can master but most modern pilots are unaccustomed to having to be that attentive on the ground.
So there are two great disadvantages of tail-draggers, poor visibility and directionally unstable on the ground. The advantage is pretty much that it is a more simple configuration. The nose wheel of a modern aircraft needs to be more heavily engineered than the tail wheel of a conventional aircraft*. Nothing very expensive will happen if the tail wheel collapses while landing on rough ground, but if the nose wheel collapses you end up with a damaged propeller and possibly extensive engine damage. Also when braking, the nose wheel needs to take a lot of weight as the weight of the aircraft is transferred forward, while a tail wheel is light on the ground in the same circumstances.
That brings me to the third disadvantage of a tail-dragger, you need to careful of how much brake you apply after landing as you can tip up on your nose. A tricylce undercarriage aircraft won’t do that.
*The tail-dragger configuration is also referred to as “conventional”.
Ok guys, I was trying to give a simple answer to the OP. I’m not sure he knows what you are talking about. And I think we all agree on the basics, the disagreement seems limited to some details. On those matters I bow to your first hand experience.
Let’s just all agree that taildraggers are the only real airplanes, and are only for real men (and women).
For those who don’t know what the ‘Maule’ in IdahoMauleMan stands for
I’d typed this up before I saw your latest post, I’m leaving it here in the interest of fleshing out the information already in the thread.
Bent and broken props are normally the end result of a ground loop or excessive braking. Lifting the tail up is no big deal except that it introduces further instability due to gyroscopic forces and can be the start of a sequence that leads to a ground loop. Having said that most ground loops in my experience have been landing accidents and are primarily caused by pilots with lazy feet and the lack of prop wash over the rudder with the engine at idle causing a lack of rudder authority. The big issue with tail-draggers is directional instability, that is what catches people out and that is why a pilot new to this type of aircraft needs to do a few hours with an instructor.
All tail-draggers are at significant risk of ground loop in any conditions. They are not to be underestimated. Provided you are attentive and proactive and use appropriate rudder inputs you can stay on top of it but any inattention can very quickly lead to embarrassment. When landing any aircraft there is a gradually increasing focus of attention and increase in finesse required as you fly from cruise, to the circuit, to final approach. In modern aircraft the maximum focus and finesse occurs in the flare as you are about to touch-down and then it rapidly drops off. You can relax somewhat through the roll out and once down to taxi speed you just need to keep a lookout for obstacles as you make your way to the parking spot. In tail-draggers, that high requirement for attention and finesse continues after touchdown and for the entire roll-out. Even while taxiing in there is a significantly higher requirement for pure handling skills. What catches non-tail-dragger pilots out is that they are used to relaxing a bit after touchdown which is when they actually need to be on the highest alert for any deviation.
Many years ago I used to fly a Tiger Moth, due to the inherent tail-dragger problems plus some extras such as a skid instead of a wheel and a lack of brakes, the most difficult part of any flight was taxiing to and from the runway.
Of course all of these tail-dragger “problems” are what makes them interesting and enjoyable to fly.
IdahoMauleMan, I used to fly an M5-235C. Great fun.
[quote=“Richard_Pearse, post:9, topic:551362”]
I once took a ride on a Stearman, when we landed the plane went into a ground loop, swinging hard to the left and going out of the runway onto the grass on the sides, barely missing some of the landing lights.
The pilot nervously said over the intercom “Don’t worry, all’s fine”
I was like “Wheeee!!, can we do it again?” 
Good times.
Those having trouble understanding the described handling of taildraggers need only push their shopping carts backward for a while. That said, why were they ever the norm? Weight and drag have been mentioned, but those still exist, so what has actually changed?
Nowadays many aircraft can operate exclusively from paved runways. In aviation’s early years, such was a luxury available to few. Conventionally geared airplanes (taildraggers) generally cope better with austere fields than tricycle geared craft, as the nose wheel is vulnerable to dropping into potholes, or sinking into soft mud, or catching on grass tufts and breaking off, or at least causing the aircraft to “trip”. When it does catch on something, the aircraft pitches forward, exacerbating the situation. Owing to the need to be steered, the nose gear is normally a single cantilevered strut that is difficult to support well without adding excessive weight. As noted above, soft field operation with a trike requires special care…mostly doing everything possible to minimize the amount of weight carried by the nose gear. It is not uncommon for a trike geared airplane, forced to make a landing in a farm field, to end up on it’s back.
Thus even modern aircraft that must operate from improvised or unimproved runways (Bushplanes) often retain the taildragger configuration.
Mishandling on the ground. As noted several times tailwheels are NOT as stable in ground handling as tricycle gears. Bent and broken props? Please - groundloops can result in broken wings and even a cartwheeling airplane.
A pilot needs tailwheel training to avoid groundlooping. 99% of that training involves ground handling, including proper take off and landing techniques. The “bent and broken props” come from either groundlooping or too-vigorous application of brakes. Good training will minimize both of those, although even the most experienced and skilled pilot can have a moment of inattention leading to an accident.
To be clear, I AM a pilot. I am ALSO authorized to fly tailwheel airplanes. Are you are questioning my training and direct experience?
Yes, a three-point landing in a tailwheel airplane is a safe and effective technique when done properly, which requires tailwheel specific training. A three-point landing in a tricycle gear airplane is NOT safe and strongly discouraged due to the risk to the nosewheel.
Yes, you need to have tailwheel specific training. This is because habits learned for one type of landing gear are unsuitable for the other. A pilot who learns to fly in a tailwheel (rare these days, but I’ve know a couple) is well advised to spend an hour or two with an instructor the first time he or she flys a tricycle gear airplane for the same reason, although transition to tricycle gear airplanes from tailwheels is MUCH faster.
Have you actually experienced this? I thought it would be nearly impossible to have a tailstrike in a C150. Try this: while the plane is standing on level ground, sit in the pilot’s seat, and ask an accomplice to pull the tail down until it’s nearly touching the ground. You will be amazed at how nose-high the resulting attitude will be - you’ll see nothing but blue sky.
As you said, to achieve a tailstrike you would probably need to actually have a fairly dramatic stall at just the right height above the ground, and the main gear would come down very (dangerously?) hard. Stall just a little bit higher and you’ll be “landing” nose first.
When I was a student pilot we actually had someone tail-land a C150. The level of damage was fairly dramatic - it crumpled the tailcone like crushing a pop can, the rudder cables were entirely bound up and immovable, basically, the rear third of the airplane had to be replaced.
So it’s possible but yeah, you have to really screw up.
My dad ran a small flight instruction service through the '60s and '70s . At our peak we had 8 airplanes, 5 of which were C150s.
I spent a lot of my teens doing A&P apprentice work on the fleet. I’ve long lost count of the number of times tail tiedown rings had to be replaced after enough material had been scraped off by dragging the runway in bad landings. We also had several incidents which hit hard enough to bend the structure so we had to do a full-blown skin, structure, GADO inspector, 337, etc. repair. Lost the whole rudder one time because the spar end cap was too bent to repair / salvage.
I agree that it’s real hard / borderline impossible to just over rotate into a tail strike on takeoff. But a flaps 40 arrival in gusty conditions and a drop-in from 3-5 feet will sure do it.
Whether as a maintainer or a CFI I’ve learned one thing in spades: *Never *underestimate the ham-handed cluelessness of student pilots.
I’ve had a tail strike in a C152 which is much the same as a C150. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I did indeed screw the pooch :D.
My log book says:
I had a total of 17.5 hours in the C152 with 5.4 hours as pilot in command and was doing a dual flight with my normal instructor. We went through some advanced handling stuff and then back to the circuit. For some reason I just didn’t have the correct perception of where the ground was and flared high. To compound the issue I just held the yoke back until we hit the ground with a high rate of descent. Because I had been doing well with training until that point my instructor was taken by surprise and didn’t manage to save it. I remember it clearly because two other aircraft belonging to the flight school were in the hanger with defects and they didn’t need any more problems. The instructor was part owner in the company and was unhappy. I think it just bent the tail tie-down loop and didn’t cause any serious damage thankfully.
The next flight was,
All was well and I never did anything like it again.
I’m not questioning your training or experience. I’m not even disagreeing with you. All I mentioned was the tailwheel specific training, and the potential of nose over. And I don’t know where the idea of a three point landing came from. Try reading post #10.