VE3LVO(at)rac.ca
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: Tri-gear vs. mono |
 |
|
Cheers,
We're off topic here, except that the following tends to divide
Europhiles when there is no need. Jim Thursby wrote an excellent rebuttal
which elicitted little response. Nevertheless, I sense that silence promoted
a false sense of condemnation of Ivan's precept and deserves further
comment.
There is no question that trigears are easier to land.
Thirty-odd thousand hours convinces me that putting two (and often three)
wheels on the ground is easier than flying after landing - what is needed on
one wheel. The number of accidents occuring after landing a 3-wheeler shows
that there is a sigh of relief after touchdown that belies the risks still
in effect during the runout. That's a clue.
Whereas the taildragger of any persuasion still requires
concentration and due diligence until a speed is reached where nothing is
flying, wing, tail or anything. This to me indicates the complete flyer -
one who is in control from 'chocks out' to 'brakes on' - and sometimes after
that.
I can see the ab initio pilot hesitating to produce a
taildragger with one main gear, and appreciate if he chooses three wheels
particularly if he has a nice long paved flat surface on which to land.
However, for the responsible aviator, there is a price to be
paid. Appearing to advance to unprepared ground, or putting forth vitriol
against other more complete flyers, or claiming false qualities for dangling
doughnuts isn't possible. Just as some people carry hot coffee or smooge on
the 'cell-phone' while enroute on the streets are steerers not drivers,
those who rely on three wheels to help them through life are not qualified
to disparage those who don't.
Complete bafflement is not a quality - it is a condition.
Ferg
A064 mono 914
Garry wrote:
| Quote: |
I remain completely baffled as to why so many Europa pilots have chosen
the
mono over the trigear when given a choice. There is absolutely zero
performance advantage to the mono, in rate of climb, in cruise speed, in
fuel burn, or whatever. The difference is that the mono is inheritantly
unstable in landing (and takeoff) configuration. Everyone (almost) else
in
the aircraft business, both large and small, has abandon the taildragger
design, and no one else is building mono wheel planes. For the life of me
I
cannot understand why Ivan thought he could be successful when the rest of
the world says it's an unstable design. The proof is in the results.
Europa mono's are ground looping, wheelbarrowing, bending props, running
off
the tarmac, and generally destroying themselves with regularity. Perhaps
that is a smart marketing strategy........to design a product that
requires
regular parts replacement and rebuilding, but as a pilot I'm not
impressed.
I do acknowledge that there are a few among our ranks who get a certain
thrill out of placing themselves in danger on every flight, and love the
challenge of taming a wild and unpredictable beast. It makes for good
chest
thumping and bragging rights at the local pub, but might I suggest that
you
take up the (American) sport of bull riding. It's probably safer and more
satisfying than trying to land a mono. I'm not trying to stir up the
ranks,
but simply trying to understand the motivation of choosing an unstable
design over a proper one. Both Europas are fabulous planes in the air,
but
one operates on the ground in a proper fashion while the other acts like a
drunk and wounded gooney bird. Let's hear some logical and unemotional
arguments in favor of the mono.>
Trigear pilot
|
| | - The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
