HW: trike or conventional

[BRS]

I just finished reading the old thread ...
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=965&start=10&hilit=nose+wheel+or+conventional)
in hopes of gaining insight to the general topic of trike/conventional as it might pertain to the HW. There are a few questions that the thread didn't help me with. I operate a sonex(conventional) and a Sportsman2+2(conventional) on a grass runway which has some bumps. The center of the runway has a narrow spot with drop-offs on each side. This center spot is not so comfortable in the sonex as I can't see ahead if the tailwheel is on the ground. With that, I'm wondering...

One: Is the nose wheel in the sonex a weak spot only suited to smooth runways?

Two: I'm thinking that the trike can be landed with a steeper flair (shorter ground roll) since the mains are further back. Is that true?

Three: Can a trike sonex be built with the hardware to hold a tail wheel (but not installed) so as to make a swap from one to the other just a matter of chaning the mount, moving the main gear. Is there huge W&B issue in doing that?

I know sonex expiriences will be different than the HW but it's a start in consideration between the two gear types. If I build a HW, I'm leaning toward the trike mainly because I don't like the forward view on roll out in my conventional gear sonex.

[Area 51%]

Speaking from a Legacy Waiex point of view, the tailwheel mount is the same as the trike's skid mount. To turn a trike's tail into a conventional would only require a spring rod, the pivot assembly/wheel, and link between the rudder horn and tailwheel.

I'm currently building a Legacy and have already installed the trike main gear mounts to hedge my bet against the tailwheel. Doing it during the initial build costs a few pounds if you never use them, but it also saves a load of disassembly and rebuild if the trike bug bites at a later date.

My first was a tail-dragger and I loved it, but I'm hoping for shorter landings without the tailwheel touching before the mains.

[BRS]

...the tailwheel mount is the same as the trike's skid mount....

... hoping for shorter landings without the tailwheel touching before the mains.

Exactly the information I was looking/hoping for. Thank you. Will hope the HW is also easy to build in such an adaptable fashion.

For those of us who can't make up our minds.

[cadcap]

Speaking from a Legacy Waiex point of view, the tailwheel mount is the same as the trike's skid mount. To turn a trike's tail into a conventional would only require a spring rod, the pivot assembly/wheel, and link between the rudder horn and tailwheel.

I'm currently building a Legacy and have already installed the trike main gear mounts to hedge my bet against the tailwheel. Doing it during the initial build costs a few pounds if you never use them, but it also saves a load of disassembly and rebuild if the trike bug bites at a later date.

My first was a tail-dragger and I loved it, but I'm hoping for shorter landings without the tailwheel touching before the mains.

Area 51%, Any input or idea about how the nose gear will attach on the trike version of the HW ? Are the landings with a conv. gear that much longer/difficult than a trike? Most kit built try gears I see look rather flimsy for grass fields or non airport landings !!

Thanks,
cadcap
C172H SuperHawk 180
HW QB #16

[Bryan Cotton]

Area 51%, Any input or idea about how the nose gear will attach on the trike version of the HW ? Are the landings with a conv. gear that much longer/difficult than a trike? Most kit built try gears I see look rather flimsy for grass fields or non airport landings !!

Thanks,
cadcap
C172H SuperHawk 180
HW QB #16

From what I've seen the HW will be similar to the legacy Sonex.
Tailwheel: main landing gear leg mounts as part of the engine mount.
Nosewheel: nose gear mount as part of the engine mount. Main gear mounts riveted in the aft part of the cabin.

[Sonerai13]

.... This center spot is not so comfortable in the sonex as I can't see ahead if the tailwheel is on the ground.

When I was giving a lot of dual in the Sonex, I found that pilots who flew J3 Cubs and vintage biplanes had no problem with the forward visibility (or lack of same) in the Sonex, while pilots who always flew airplanes where they could see over the nose struggled. You might want to go get some taining in a J3 or the back seat of a Citabria or something similar. Get used to using your peripheral vision rather than relying on seeing over the nose. It will help you with ALL your landings, not just the Sonex.

I'm thinking that the trike can be landed with a steeper flair (shorter ground roll) since the mains are further back. Is that true?

While in theory this is correct, and is noticeable on some airplanes (I'm looking at you, Texas Taildragger Cessna 150), with the Sonex the difference is barely measurable. You can get a really nice short landing with a tailwheel Sonex if you use correct speed and technique. As with most things, the secret is practice, followed by more practice. Then some practice!

Can a trike sonex be built with the hardware to hold a tail wheel (but not installed) so as to make a swap from one to the other just a matter of chaning the mount, moving the main gear. Is there huge W&B issue in doing that?

As others have mentioned, the tailwheel mount is already there on the trike-gear. But the main gear mounts add significant weight. The Sonex is a very light airplane, so "a few pounds" can make a noticeable difference in useful load. Building extra weight into the airplane is just taking weight away from useful load, so not recommended. I know you didn't mention building the tri-gear mounts into the fuselage right away, but someone else in the thread did, so I wanted to include this comment. The best airplanes are the light ones, Sonex or otherwise. Keep it light!!

[Area 51%]

Since there will be no spar tunnel to disassemble, the switch from nose to tailwheel on the HW may be a non-event. At least not as complicated as a Legacy or B.

It may be possible to prep the spar tunnel on a Legacy or B to accept the main gear mounts without actually installing the "heavy" (5 lbs each) units. A torque plate may be sufficient. That's for the tech team to decide.

For me, the trade-off is worth the weight.

[BRS]

Since there will be no spar tunnel to disassemble,....

Right, good point! I had failed to think about this.

[ampzapper]

It may be possible to prep the spar tunnel on a Legacy or B to accept the main gear mounts without actually installing the "heavy" (5 lbs each) units. A torque plate may be sufficient. That's for the tech team to decide.

The gear mounts are actually just under 2lbs each on the legacy without the hardware. Building mine I kept it a tri gear and figured it would be relatively easy to switch down the road if I really want to. I like the idea of making a plate but I could see it also making it more tricky to get good holes with the mounts in the correct position. Between the tolerances of the weldments and fuselage it took fidgeting to get all the surfaces to mate up nice. It'll be interesting to see the structure under the seat and how they mount the gear on the HW.

[Area 51%]

I like the idea of making a plate but I could see it also making it more tricky to get good holes with the mounts in the correct position.

Agreed. My suggestion of the plate was for those that couldn't justify the $800 or so for the mounts.....the weight notwithstanding.