I want to urge my fellow Trigear pilots to not look down their nose at those who continue to drag their tails. There are many pilots who simply cannot maser the trigear, and it should not be a source of ridicule or shame when these aviators do the prudent thing and revert to the "conventional" gear.
I recall the words of Chuck Yeager--"Yes, I was a combat flier, did pretty well in P-51s and in doing some testing of new airplanes. But I became a
real pilot when I mastered the trigear. Lots of good P-51 pilots couldn't do it." (I'm pretty sure he wrote that, it might have been Bob Hoover).
When aviation made the jump from real "air
fields" to "runways", the rationale for taildraggers fell away along with the ability to always take off and land with a headwind. The better, more flexible trigear was developed and aviation never looked back. But, as Art Scholl wrote "there were some guys who just couldn't "get" the trigear, could never master the higher available AoA on takeoff and landing. It's just hotter and more challenging. For those guys I'm glad we've still got the taildraggers with that nice, big triangular base. Some of these guys are still good pilots-- slower reflexes, sure, but nice guys. It would be a shame to lose them just because airplane design left them behind." (I
think that was Art Scholl, maybe it was Jimmy Doolittle).
For those who take the small step back to the older taildragger form, the FAA helpfully mandates the additional remedial hours of instruction for the so-called "taildragger endorsement." Yes, the accident statistics and insurance rates give objective testimony to the continued troubles these pilots continue to have, but imagine how much worse the situation would be without the remedial training!
Sonex taildragger:
[img]
Sonex TrigearAnyway, whether we choose to fly taildragger or trigear, the important part is the flying, not the 2% of the time we spend with the wheels on the ground.
(Tongue firmly in cheek)
Mark Waldron