Want Taildragger Opinions

Like so many others I need help in the TD/Tri-Gear debate. I don't want to make a $60+k mistake, and I'm looking for serious TD pilots who will indulge me (I have no interest whatsoever in the 'real men fly...' issue).
My situation:
300-hour pilot with about 100 hours in TD's (low-performance Aeronca, Champ), seeking an efficient, fast, UTILITARIAN, non-retractable, serious cross-country bird for 1-2 people. After rejecting Mustang II and Pulsar-100, RV-7 or RV-7A is it. My flying would be minimal 'around-the-patch', sight-seeing, grass-strip, or dirt-strip stuff.

Why I want an RV-7 (vs 7A):
1. Faster (though not much);
2. Lighter (quite a few pounds);
3. Better looking (shouldn't be important, but it is);
4. Easier access to cabin, avoiding the weight, cost, labor, drag, and ugliness of the added step hanging out;

I was still about talked into a 7A until I hopped in the cabin of an RV-6A. The gear brackets and braces on the floor are an ABORTION!!! "It's okay," I was told, "your leg flexes right around it!"...holy mackeral.

I was also told there are many TD pilots who will not fly their TD's in gusts/crosswinds while nose gear guys never give it a thought...I can't (not) fly that way.

Given my particular situation, and potential problems with experience, insurance, re-sale, ground loops, whatever, should I just bail and go with the 7A? Kinda hard to know in advance the crosswinds on a cross-country.
Sorry for the length, but I'm really, truly interested in TD pilot opinions.
Thanks,
Allan

Make a list

Make a list of the pros and cons in your opinion and then add the input from this forum. The bigger number wins. I do not know if it applies in your situation but don't forget your family and what might be better for them if they get involved in the flying. Good luck.

Morning, Allen.

Well, this topic always brings out the passion on both sides, so what I'll try to do is talk about what *I* like about having my T/D - and I'll try to touch on things people don't usually talk about.

I had absolutely zero tailwheel time before I got in Alex's RV-6 for transition training (www.RVtraining.com), so worded another way - my first landing in a tailwheel aircraft was in a RV-6 from the left seat. My transition training was also my tailwheel endorsement. I think I had about 150hrs in Cessnas at the time.

So on to the topics:

1. Getting it back in the hanger is a little easier because you just lean into the horizontal stab with the back of your thighs and scootch it in, walking backwards (steering left and right when needed). The tri-gear requires a little more work (but not much). Many use a toe bar for this. We have little angle iron rails on the ground that we have to push the planes over (the doors roll on these), so you have to get a running start. This is definitely hard with tri-gear in our particular hanger. If you didn't have this they would both be pretty easy to get in I guess.
2. Crosswind landing. My position all along is that a properly trained pilot will do whatever is needed with the controls in the flare to keep the fuselage parallel with the centerline, regardless of whether it's a nose wheel or tailwheel. Understand, I don't want to bust the myth of the macho tailwheel pilot (grin), but it's just not that hard. I've landed once or twice in crosswinds hard enough to require putting the rudder all the way to the floor (wishing I had a little more to push). My belief was that it would have been a handful in the tri-gear also <g>.
3. Access to the engine. My personal opinion is that working around the engine when the cowl is off is easier with the TD. One less fairing to take off and no nose strut to go around while changing the oil and inspecting stuff. I've got one of those 'Tail-Mate' things that you crank the tail up with (for changing the oil)...puts the engine at a nice stool-level position.
   http://www.vansairforce.net/review/tailmate/IMG_2342.jpg
4. Visibility over the cowl while taxiing. I can see over my cowl. No prob. I taxi in a straight line and can steer if needed w/o having to tap the brakes. I'll give ya it's probably a little more work, but I'm used to it and honestly don't give it any thought now.

I'd build what your gut tells you to build, and if that's a T/D, don't sweat the extra training you'll need. I'd guess I spent about .05% more effort training to land my T/D.


Hope some of this helped.
Best always,

Allan,
The gear structure in the cockpit is a problem for me also. I think it has something to do with my short legs. Long legged people don't seem to have as much of a problem with the gear towers. As far as not flying in cross-winds, I can't imagine that being a factor of where the tailwheel is. I've been flying my -6 for 12.5 years and my decision not to fly in a cross-wind would not be any different if the tailwheel was in front. The RV series of airplanes are very tame taildraggers. That's not to say they don't handle like taildraggers, but they are very honest and easy to master. I built a -6 instead of a -6A and would make the same decision today for basically the same reasons you state. In my opinion a person that won't fly a taildragger in a crosswind or gusty conditions should not fly a tricycle under the same conditions.
Mel...DAR

Tailwheel or Nosewheel

That decision is allways a tough choice, after building and flying an RV-6 for about 450 hours I am now wrapping up a RV-9a and it was the best choice for me because....
The insurance is less expensive on a trigear (big factor for me)
It is much less stressfull (read easier) to land the trigear in certain conditions like at Destin Florida where the runway is narrow, often wet and lined with airplanes, add a gusting crosswind and it just makes it that much more challenging.
The only reason I would build a taildragger now is to be able to use the airfoil shaped Grove gear legs that eliminate the whipping and vague feeling when you arent sure if you are really on the ground or not
It may not be as big of a factor on the -7s but on a -9a you can achieve a higher AOA on the TO roll by hauling back on the stick to break ground sooner for a shorter takoff than with the -9.
Best of luck with your project, you will love it no matter which configuration...
BTW..what canopy are you using? Tip up, my fave, or slider?
Regards,
Rick

Allen,

I wasn't going to respond to this initially because I'm a relatively inexperienced taildragger pilot, but then maybe since you're in the same boat, you'll get more out of my input than you might from someone much more experienced.

First off I think it is very important that you've already decided to go with a taildragger. What I mean is that no one can decide for you, you need to know what you want and why you want it. Then a forum like this can help you determine if you're on the right track. As you stated in your post, you want the taildragger and you've listed reasons x,y, and z. Your only question seems to be how well does the RV-7 handle on the ground, especially in crosswind conditions. Hopefully this is where I can help.

First, my background. I've only been flying my RV-7 for 1 1/2yrs and have 230hrs on it now. I had over 2000hrs total, but absolutely no tailwheel time when I started flying it. I wanted the taildragger for only two reasons. I wanted to land on rough strips and I thought it looked a lot cooler than the "A" model. However I also had the same apprehensions that you have about crosswinds and groundloops. So I started off slow. I set my personal crosswind limits at a very conservative level. If I even so much as had a doubt, I didn't go flying. Over a period of about six months I gradually increased my comfort zone to the point where I was flying in the same wind as any average nose wheel airplane would.

Let me say that this airplane is pathetically easy to takeoff/land in so far as tail draggers go. I'm almost embarrased when people say "wow, you fly a taildragger", because I know how easy it is. And it's due to one overriding thing. That gigantic vertical stab/rudder combination. You must remember that it's almost 1/3 larger than the RV-6's vert/rudder combo. When I first started landing in crosswinds of substantial magnitude, I can remember coming down on final a little nervous, then I would just simply land and say, "wow, that was nothing." It became a matter of "just fly the plane". This isn't to say that there aren't still some crosswinds that I wouldn't fly in, but the the -7's vert/rudder is just that effective.

I would say Allen that with you're 100hrs of taildragger time you already have that you should have absolutely no problems with the -7. As for the comment about TD guys not flying in crosswinds that nose wheel guys don't give a thought about. I don't believe that for a minute. Just hang out with the RV bunch in the DFW area. I've seen those guys routinely fly with relatively stiff crosswinds and I'm talking about guys like Jay Pratt, Doug Reeves, Don Christiansen, Danny King, etc.

And finally, don't worry about the $60k mistake. These planes are somewhat convertible as evidenced by Van's when they converted there RV-7 to an -7A after flying it as a td for a couple of years.

hope this long winded reply helps,
Tobin
Milton FL

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum and have been considering building a -7A (after originally considering a -9A), so my question is: does anyone have pictures of the -7A cockpit that shows the gear structure? I'd like to see how much it protrudes into the cabin area.

Thanks!

- ccrawford

Overall, I have a little over 2000 hrs, about half TD time. I built an RV6 and am now building an RV8. My observations are as follows:
TDs look nicer to me.
Inspection of the tail is easier during pre-flight.
Maintenance on a TW is easier and cheaper than a nose wheel.
Weight is less.
No gear towers in the cockpit with a TD.
Vision over the nose has hardly ever been a problem in the RV.
Ingress & egress is easier. (Slightly)
More prop clearance during taxiing and on grass/dirt strips.
I think landing in the TD in a x-wind is easier, assuming you know how to do wheel landings. If you do 3 point landings, there's probably no real difference, assuming you are really TW qualified.
People will say you can flip over a TD easier than a tri-gear. Probably true, but I have seen tri-gears go over on their tail, too.
In a TD, you must be aware that you have to fly the plane all the way to the chocks. Taxiing a tri-gear can allow your mind to wander...maybe the TD forces you to be a better pilot.
I feel more comfortable about being able to drain all moisture out of the tanks in the TW low position, which is normal for the TD.
I believe the engine is easier to work on since there is no nose wheel in the way and the engine is up a little more.
Stricly my opinion, but I think the TD is easier to build, based on my projects and others I have helped with.
If you want to convert at a later date, check with VAN's about it before you build. On the -6 there were some differences, such as different gusset sizes in the front part of the fuselage. You would want the larger -6A gussets in that case. I don't know about the other models.
I think the -As look bigger, since they are sitting up on a tri-gear.
Insurance on the TD may be more, depending on your insurer and your TW time.
I find the TD easy to pull around on the taxi way, using a loop of rope around the tailwheel. About the same as pulling around a tri-gear, except the TD is easier if you need to turn the tail around in a confined space.
You can turn a TD around in a much tighter space than a tri-gear while taxiing.

Good luck on making your decision...my advice is build what you want and don't let anyone talk you into a compromise.

To Second some of the other comments:

I am a 400hr pilot, 150 hrs in my former, first love, Citabria...had to sell it to get the final items...sigh....

1. Speed with economy...I had access to an 0-320 cheap so I wanted to build the slickest airframe I could. Local wisdom from those who had a 6 and built a 7a is that the nosewheel is really worth about 3-5 knots of loss, much more than Van's claims...I suspect that one the lower end of the power scale the difference might be more pronounced. Part of the problem may be the big ugly steps that seem to be required on the tricycle.

2. I am fitting a custom cowl from Sam james, and I did not want any extra complications from cutting it around a nosewheel.

3. Since my engine will be approximately 2" forward, and I will have about 3.25 inches of prop extension, I thought the tailwheel would look much cooler...longer, sleeker, etc...

4. I really do not think that it is much harder to fly a tailwheel, than it is to fly a tricycle well. Of course if you do not fly much, or are a bit more relaxed, the tricycle will help. I fly alot, when my Citabria was around, I built my hours in a little over 2 years...so I anticipate flying alot once the 7 is done. This also helps, but infrequent flyers may benefit from the tricycle gear as well.

5. Simplicity. When I looked at other builders it just seemed that when routing things like brake lines, fuel lines, etc...the tricycle gear was less clean.

6. Big open cockpit. When I have looked at both, and when I sat in both, the gear towers seemed to ruin what otherwise looked like a nice big space. I have only flown in tailwheel rv's (6) so no idea what it would be like in flight.

7. Weight. Again the big ugly steps were an issue in my mind. as well as the nose gear.

8. Off airport and rough strip work. JUST MY OPINION. I like to go to grass strips..a Citabria habbit. No matter what others say, I am just more comfortable going to a new, unfamiliar strip in a tailwheel, on the theory that if I encounter roughness, I am less likely to flip or damage the gear in a tailwheel. I do not plan bush operations...but occaisionally I go to less tha golf-course manicured strips.

Similarly, If I have to put it down in a field, I would just feel more comfortable in a tailwheel.

DOWNSIDE I CONSIDERED:

1. Insurance: I am building a cheap plane which brought the overall cost of insurance down, and lessened the gap to under $450 per year on the quotes I got.

2. Resale: Like primer and other things, the irrational views of the market can drive down value. But, I plan to have the plane for some time, and am building a plane that I will not need $90,000 out of in the end.

3. CG: I was afraid that because of the 0-320, and composite propr (28lbs) I would have an aft CG issue. But, I am building light, and luckily my wife weighs next to nothing. In addition, I think that spacing the engine forward, and concentrating mass in the forward areas will help alot.

In the end, I just chose to go taildragger. Once you go TW....you may always enjoy it. I mst say the positive control offered by tailwheel steering, and the options I have..wheel landing, 3-point, or even the occaisional tail low fullstall, or tail low wheel landing are all tools I use in different conditions.

JUST MY OPINION

Taildragger?

I'm building an RV-8 and am a real fan of tailwheel airplanes. Remaining current is easy since I have a half share of a Pitts S-2A, a wonderful plane we've flown for 24 years. My reasons for building the 8 are: a) Slightly faster; b) Looks better - in my opinion too; c) May be a little lighter; d) I've found tailwheel aircraft more maneuverable on the ground; e) Probably tougher - we (my wife and I) hope to fly to back country strips; f) perhaps most important, TW's are more fun to TO, land and taxi in my experience. I also fly a Lance regularly but it's not as much fun. While considering RV's I met a man in Green Bay WI who was converting his RV-9A to a "9" after having a nose gear failure on a rough strip. It the little wheel fails, I don't think you'd damage engine/prop and could probably make emergency TO and Ldg if really necessary. For me that's another good reason. If you'd like to discuss, give me a call at 414-332-7897. Bill

Taildragger

Sorry!! Forgot to mention that crosswinds are fine in a taildragger with good control authority, and I think RV's have that. The Pitts is hands down the best airplane to land in a crosswind I have ever flown. It can safely be landed on a hard surface in direct crosswinds over 35 knots - although it could get dicey on an extremely narrow runway in that condition. Such direct x-winds are rare and I doubt you'd find any serious wind problems after getting used to your airplane. It's a fun challenge. The tri-gear is easier but not so much fun. Bill Dicus

Alan,
Ive been going thru the same questions as you- hard decisions to make for sure. My final decision is the 9A. The reasons for MY choice: the greater angle of attack of the triwheel, greater lift of the 9A wing and slower landing/takeoff speed is better suited for grass strip use AND for normal use at windy, high density altitude, airports that are the rule here in the West.

I noticed that with EQUAL POWER, the 9A is very close to the 7A performance numbers, but the 9A tends to be slightly more efficient. Both burn a lot of fuel at full throttle with minimal speed increases, so Im guessing that most of the flight time will be at slower speeds, where the 9A has the advantage.

FWIW, I plan to go with a turbocharged Rotary engine, which easily generates 200 HP if/when desired at the same flight weight as less powerful (160) Lyc engine; Im guessing the rotary powered 9A will perform as well (or better) than a 7A with the large engine (at full power) and a bit better at part throttle (without boost).

I have to be honest, I didn't read all the replies, just sort of skimmed them so I hope this wasn't already said...

Something else to consider is how often you will fly. I will say that after 4+ years of nothing but tailwheel flying I feel much less comfortable in the cockpit, after an extended period of no flying (winter weather, annuals, etc.). I have learned that I must keep my T/W skills honed, otherwise I get a little sloppy. If you are going to fly all the time, no issue, but if you see yourself having times of inactivity, then it might be another factor to consider.

On a related, but anecdotal note...
Until recently I hadn't flown or flown in a nosewheel airplane for over 4 years. A few months ago I took a ride in a nosewheel with an experienced pilot who only has a few hours of T/W time. When we came in on short final I found my pucker factor went through the canopy (roof). We were sideways, off centerline, this way, that way, anyway but the way I have become accustomed to being in a T/W. I found myself entire body tense as we flared, as if to prepare for the worst, but as the wheels touched we straightened right out and cruised right down the runway. I think I'll just stop without further comment.

BTW... I am building a 7. Good luck!

I've been flying tailwheel airplanes for lotsa years. Mostly light two seaters like Cessna 140s, Luscombes etc. My RV-6 is one of the easier ones I've flown. The tail wheel steering couldn't be more positive. Unless there is a lot of wind, you just drive it around. I've landed in crosswinds at 17 kts at right angle to the runway without problems. If I were going to complain about anything, it would be lack of visibility over the right side of the nose, but I understand that has been addressed somewhat in the RV-7. My biggest surprise when I first started out in my RV-6 was the amount of right rudder it takes to keep the pointy end headed straight down the runway on take off. Thats just a matter of learning your airplane.

Bob S

Went through the same thought process between the 6 & 6A. In all honesty, I thought the 6's looked kind of whimpy on the ground (but better than the tri-gear in the air), and the 6A as looking more substantial. Still do! Kind of like a Glasair retractable tri-gear on the ground, versus the squatty looking taildragger...

IMO, as a taildragger, the F1's and Harmon Rockets have that more macho, tough, mean, and fast look! Of course, I'd never think of an 8A either, and an 8 would have to be a tailwheel.

But being "practical", and needing a side by side for cross countries with the wife, I went with the more "substantial" looking 6A. And the "gear tower" is totally un-noticeable. I'm tall, but short legs.

L.Adamson

HU-U-U-GE Thanks!!!

All the responses are MOST helpful- I LOVE THIS SITE!

[Oh, to Rick, as I'm in Arizona I'm going with the slider-type (cooler) canopy, but in this case there isn't much decision. I wanted a fixed windshield, and the big downside for me of not having the tip-up was access to the baggage area (the tougher instrument access I'll put up with). Now that I've seen the COMBINED 'slider/tip-up' canopy (I forget the name of the guy who designed it but I'll locate him when it's time), I can now have "both" for about $150 extra.]

Thanks again, everyone...more helpful than you can possibly imagine.
Allan

Tailwheel vs Nosewheel

When it came time for my decision on my 8 vs. 8A project, I went out and got my tailwheel endorsement in a '46 Luscombe. I am a low (125 hrs) time pilot and found that the tailwheel was a blast! I was fortunate to take my training in the high winds of March/ April, so I was able to see THE BEAST. My instructor had such a calm demeanor in spite of my early efforts to kill us both In a few hours, I had three-pointers down and was getting close with wheeling it on. Once I overcame my fear of the ground, wheeling it on became easier. I probably only have a total of ten hours in a taildragger, but they were good hours and I count them as some of the best hours spent in my life when it comes to fun factor. My thoughts are that all of us should get a few hours in a taildragger just for the fun of it, and I can promise that your tri-gear landings will improve, as will your awareness of what the winds are doing around the air field.

Good thread

Allan N. Spreen said:

My situation:300-hour pilot with about 100 hours in TD's (low-performance Aeronca, Champ), seeking an efficient, fast, UTILITARIAN, non-retractable, serious cross-country bird for 1-2 people.

Click to expand...

Your thread is getting some good advice and replies, with fact and not the usual emotion on the topic.

I have 1,000 TD's and a lot more in tri-gear. Most of my 1000 hour TD time is in RV-4/6. With your 100hr TD time, you will make the transition to the RV TD a non-event with no problem. The RV TD's land very nice with: low landing speed, good vis (for a TD), good rudder authority, solid feel and long gear base. Before my first RV flight about 12 years ago, most of my recent TD time was in a clip-wing cub about a year before. I had about 50 hours TD at that time. The RV-4 was a non-event. I will not give you the PROS & CONS of TD Vs. Tri-gear, but I will tell you for a TD the RV is a very nice, easy and pleasant to fly TD, with no bad habits, good fwd Vis and ground handling.

My previous TD time: Cub, Luscombe, Citabria and a few flights in a T-6 and Sterman each. (The Sterman flew me a little.) The RV edges the Cub out in ease of landing. (The Cub had the funky heal brakes.)

I say a RV landing is like landing a fast Piper Cub, very docile. Go fly a RV, than try a "RV-A" model, it will help you make your mind up. Many people who try to make the decision have zero TD time, so you are way ahead of the game. I personally like the TD, and my second RV is a RV-7 I am building now. I have no second thoughts. I think it is just more fun when it comes down to it.

I agree with the other Gent, the myth of the steely eyed taildragger pilot is a joke, it just is not that hard. Also visibility is pretty good and S-turns are pretty much not needed. I do think a TD has better steering for taxi, because the "A" model really has no steering. You have to jab/drag brakes to steer. I never drove an "A" model or a Grumman, so I can't tell you what that is like. All the Tri-gears I have flown, C150 to B767, have nose wheel steering.

A couple of one liners (facts/opinion): Taildragger is easier to build without the cowl/nose gear details; TD has more room in cockpit ("A" model gear support structure); 4 into 1 exhaust is not an option with the "A" model; Insurance will be a lot with 100/300 hrs, but consider ground and /or liability insurance only until you have more time (may be get the $30K avionics suite later until you get it insured).

Cheers George

PS:
Tip-up Slider: http://www.aircraftextras.com/Tip-Up-Slider1.htm
RV-9A builder w/ tip/slider: http://www.n2prise.org/Tugwell1.htm

99.9% Consideration

This is a particularly good thread on the T/N Dragger. Lots of good info without the usual swagger.

I went with the 7 because of three major points you live with virtually all the time you fly or are around the airplane.

1. The main gear support structure in the ND is an engineering abomination. Somebody made the decision that parts commonality is more important than human factors, forgetting the near-hippocratic oath that engineering focuses on the end user, not the contrivance. That jungle-gym mess will ALWAYS be in the way, and I refuse to get used to an elephant in the living room.

2. The TD is a simpler airplane to build and maintain, overall, reflected in the price delta.

3. Getting you and baggage in and out is easier with the tail on the ground.

I have surprised myself with very nice landings of the 7 in crosswinds that would given me the hot fantods in my 172, also. The RVs are gentle taildraggers, but you will take greater notice knowing it's a taildragger, so that, to me, gooses the awareness factor. (I've actually come closest to removing runway lights by getting careless in the 172.)

John Siebold

RV7ator said:

...I have surprised myself with very nice landings of the 7 in crosswinds that would given me the hot fantods in my 172, also.

Click to expand...

John,

I can't remember the last time I've read the word 'fantods' anywhere. I actually laughed out loud <grin>. I would have also liked to see 'it gave me a case of the horribles.'

I agree with all your TD/ND points. Friday I flew Danny King's Beautiful Doll (RV-8 TD) for the first time - my first time in a RV-8 solo. NO BIG DEAL. Today after the weekend RV breakfast I flew Jay Pratt's 'Shooter' - a Super Cub type A/C made by a company called NorthStar. NO BIG DEAL. Sad but true: There is no steely-eyed tailwheel pilot <grin>.

Best,
dr

Fantods: http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-fan1.htm

Pardon the newbie questions but....

How much more % wise is insurance for TDs [assuming everything is identical between the two [hours, time in type, etc?]?

How are grass airfields prepped differently then ?just a field?? If one had flat land could they build an airstrip for themselves without much difficulty?

What are ground loops?

Which type would be better for a ?heavier? engine? I am toying with the idea of using a diesel at some point. Does the TD or the Tri do better with heavier engines?

If one were building an A, how much difficulty would it be to add the tail wheel bracket [effort/money/time] at that time so that a conversion could be made later if desired?

There was a recent thread in the 9 section where a newbie was asking about an A v. TD. Several people there said that As land well on grass strips. Comments?


thanks,

John

TD Questions

Deuskid said:

How are grass airfields prepped differently then ?just a field?? If one had flat land could they build an airstrip for themselves without much difficulty?

Click to expand...

Hard to give an exact answer. I've seen grass strips that were exactly like any random field in the middle of nowhere, just "mowed". I've also seen them that were smooth and about as pretty as a golf green. Mostly they are in between. Depends on the area, type of dirt, amount of rain and sunshine, and what kinds of local animals you have that like to dig. Having never created a grass strip myself, I have no idea how hard it is to build and maintain one, but like most things, it's probably harder than it looks.

Deuskid said:

What are ground loops?

Click to expand...

It's when the tailwheel can't make up its mind about whether it is a tailwheel or a nose wheel. Unfortunately it often involves the wingtips, and possibly other parts of the aircraft. For more information about why this happens, get a kid's tricycle, and give it a push. Now turn it around, and push it backwards. See what happens.

The eternal question...

Good Thread...

I'll have to admit that even with more than 150 hours in TD aircraft (Champ/Citabrias) and 350+ total hours, I was at first a bit apprehensive about the RV TD configuration. With that amount of hours, I'm certainly no pro, but I'm very comfortable in a 7AC flyin on nothing but "needle, ball, airspeed". After reading all the posts here however, I am completely at peace with the decision to press with my RV-7.

I'm not sure why I had any apprehension.

Perhaps because I haven't sat in a -7 and wasn't sure about taxi visibility.

Perhaps because I haven't landed in a -7 and was uncertain about x-wind performance. (Although I have always felt much more comfortable landing a Champ in the x-wind as compared to the C-172).

I love TD airplanes for all the reasons listed in the earlier posts. There's nothing more fun than making the grass strip tour on a Saturday morning.

My gut always said TD. Now my decision is final...

Thanks guys,

What ever a pilot/builder decides, TD or ND, the big deal is just learn to properly fly the configuration of your choice. They are both Great fun and both Beautiful airplanes. Improperly controlled and flown without respect, either can be an ugly handfull. That can be said about any airplane. Proper training, technique, and respect are key.

JMHO

Roberta