What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Taildragger for Night and IFR flying?

CubedRoot

Well Known Member
Hey folks. I have pretty much fell in love with the RV taildraggers, and am still planning on building my 7 to be a tail dragger. However, I have no tailwheel time as of yet, but I plan on getting some time in a Decathalon way before I have m 7 done, then probably do some transition training in a RV-7 as well.

Are tailwheel planes just as capable as their nosewheel counterparts when it comes to landing at night or even flying IFR? I understand that at after the wheels leave the ground, there is no difference, but what I am worried about is how much more challenging they are (if any) when landing at night or doing an approach and landing in IFR conditions and having a wet runway.

I am planning on doing quite a bit of night flying, and will use my RV-7 on cross country IFR flights as well once I get that rating. I'll probably end up doing my IFR training in my RV-7 just to save money and do the training in a plane I'd be familiar with.

Thanks in advance!
 
Learn to walk before you run, take it slow and theres no reason at all it can't (or shouldn't) be done. Don't do your first IFR approaches to minimums. Dont do your first night landings in pitch black, black-hole runways. Ease into it by doing circuits as the sun goes down and keep going a little later each time as you get comphortable. Also, with this type of flying currency is everything. Even as a commercial pilot flying IFR every day, I get rusty after a two week vacation.
 
I remember one evening watching one of the more experienced pilots at our airport doing touch-and-goes in his RV-4 well after dark. I aspire to be that good in my RV-6 some day, he made it look easy. Every one of them was a wheel landing, too.
 
The airlines flew DC-3s for, what, 30-50 years. I'm pretty sure they flew at night and in IFR conditions.
 
Visibility is highly over rated. There are plenty of taildraggers out there that you cant even see the runway on final on a bright sunny day, let alone in the 3 point attitude. The point being, you generally dont need a landing light or even forward visibility if you have the peripheral cues active. If so, then night actually is easier due to the sharp definition of the edge due to runway lighting. Landing a taildragger is far more about "feel" than "sight".

Eventually, you will get to the point where the fact that its a taildragger does not even enter your mind. I cant remember the last time I looked at a windsock and said, "I wish this thing had a nose wheel". With enough practice, its just another airplane.
 
I fly my RV4 at night and IFR, and no real difference that I can tell between it an a tricycle gear airplane. I'm actually better with the RV4 than I am in a 172 (and I have more total hours in Cessnas still).

I fly in the rain as well, no real difference there either. Only when there is a gusty crosswind do things seem a little more difficult, but keep the correct control inputs in and "fly" it until taxi speeds and I've yet to have a problem.
 
Isn't there a mantra about using superior decision making to prevent the need to apply superior piloting skills?

I chose a nosedragger for this particular IFR reason. I did not want to be faced with a more difficult taildragger landing after flying in the ****, making a turbulent approach and then looking at the runway out the side window after breaking out of the clouds because of STRONG crosswinds. I have had IFR days like this.

At that time a taildragger is not on my desired list. Could do it? Yes. Do I want the need for extra skill when I am tired? NO.

Yes, I would love to have a taildragger for the few extra MPH but I'm telling you that I do fly in MUCH higher winds than most everyone else at KAVL except for the commercial folks.

It is a non-issue in a trike.
 
Last edited:
I'm not IFR rated, but I put about 200 hrs on a Globe Swift and a fair amount was at night. In my experience, there's no difference in landing issues between tail & nose draggers.

Can't see why there'd be any difference at all for IFR, since the wheel location isn't a factor.
 
After a couple years of G-18 flying freight at night I just use the basic same techniques in my RV7. I do wheel Landings at night but as far as IFR the landing might be 3 point or wheel landing what ever during the day

you'll have a good time enjoy the build now
 
Last edited:
I recommend building hours on type prior to making a firm decision regarding which ratings and what type of flying you'll peruse. I was set on flying IFR when I started out, but the more I flew, and the more IMC I flew in, I realized that I had no problem with only flying when it's nice out!! I finally let my currency lapse and haven't regretted it yet!
 
The good news is that you can build your tail and wings before making even the slightest commitment. I'm not sure of all the details about changing landing gear in each direction, but it can be done.
 
Isn't there a mantra about using superior decision making to prevent the need to apply superior piloting skills?

I chose a nosedragger for this particular IFR reason. I did not want to be faced with a more difficult taildragger landing after flying in the ****, making a turbulent approach and then looking at the runway out the side window after breaking out of the clouds because of STRONG crosswinds.

Huh? Wouldn't superior decision making skills prevent you from making a flight that pushes your skills that far in the first place?

I don't like calling folks out on the forum here, but this really doesn't make sense to me.
 
Around Seattle you need to fly through the marine layer to reach the nice weather. Having an instrument rating / capable airplane has let me fly on more "sunny" days than I otherwise could have :)


... the more IMC I flew in, I realized that I had no problem with only flying when it's nice out!! I finally let my currency lapse and haven't regretted it yet!
 
Practice, plus, with all these new LED landing/taxi light combinations I figure you can build a little overkill and light the runway up almost to daylight.
 
Thanks for all the input so far. I have only just started my wings, so I am still a good while away from making a decision on the fuselage.

I am planning on getting some tailwheel time around the fall of this year, and also starting my IFR in the fall as well.

Its sounding like once you get the feel for the wheel being in the back, there isn't a very big difference in gear configurations on an RV-7. My main concern for IFR flying was landing in crosswind-y and wet weather.
 
Good for you building the plane you want!

When you start on your tailwheel endorsement, it will seem impossible at first. No different than mastering the flair in a tricycle. At around 10 hours +/- you will wonder what the big deal was. Then you will start flying your RV-7, which will take 40 hours of test flying. By then you will have 50 hours of tailwheel time and should be comfortable in the -7.

Take a couple of day cross country flights just to get used to it. Then invite your TW instructor to get your night currency and you will be good to go.

Keep pounding! This world needs more tailwheel pilots!
 
FWIW, I'm in exactly the same boat, and chose a nosedragger for the same reason.

Until you get very proficient with a taildragger, and STAY that good, winds at your destination will likely affect your IFR travel planning and execution to a much greater degree than with a nosedragger.

I say this (a) even though I really like taildraggers and (b) after having partially owned, and traveled in, an IFR taildragger (a really nice Glasair Sportsman) over the course of a year and a half.

Surprisingly, the 5,000-hour taildragger devotee who is my hangar neighbor readily agrees with me about this. When he really needs to get somewhere, he goes in a nosedragger (he's lucky enough to own more than one airplane....).

Reasonable people can definitely differ about this of course. I have zero doubt that an appropriately trained and current taildragger pilot could equalize the situation between a taildragger and a nosedragger, making the whole thing entirely irrelevant. The DC-3 point is a good one! If you're that person, by all means have at it. But I appraised my personal situation and figured I didn't need the extra complication in my night/IFR/travel risk package.

Also, my zillion-hour brother-in-law once ground-looped a DC-3. :D

I chose a nosedragger for this particular IFR reason. I did not want to be faced with a more difficult taildragger landing after flying in the ****, making a turbulent approach and then looking at the runway out the side window after breaking out of the clouds because of STRONG crosswinds. I have had IFR days like this.

At that time a taildragger is not on my desired list. Could do it? Yes. Do I want the need for extra skill when I am tired? NO.
 
Interesting

This is really interesting thought process. I applaud any pilot that looks at his/her limits and stays within those limits. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. For myself in the -7, I would say my wind limits are probably going to be within a few knots of cross wind component. I don't think I would want to land a 7A in a 20 or 25 knot cross wind and wouldn't want to land my -7 in anything above 18 to 20... Would that be a "go, no go decision"? Not really sure about that.

But I know 1 thing for sure : The other 100 + hours that I'm flying the -7 during the year I certainly rather be in a TD than an nose wheel... even after my first 15 years of flying starting out in nose wheel planes.

It's all about Personal limits my friend.
 
We are not all the same, so its certainly prudent to evaluate your own skillset and act on that. That said, nothing brings your "A Game" quicker than "zero options", so one can reasonably expect to rise to a challenge. There are pros and cons to playing it safe.
 
I would be far more concerned about the single engine night IFR than the gear configuration. Keep in mind that the RV's are not suitable for flight with icing a possibility. Depending on where you live that may be your biggest limit.
G
 
Huh? Wouldn't superior decision making skills prevent you from making a flight that pushes your skills that far in the first place?

I don't like calling folks out on the forum here, but this really doesn't make sense to me.

I expected to be poked about that. :) Understandable too.

Depends on your point of view and how much utility one chooses to get out of the craft. While a flight like I described can be uncomfortable, in my mind there was nothing dangerous about the IFR part. Not all IFR is "light". Unlike other pilots I know, I do not let wind stop me from flying. When I made my gear choice, I wanted a craft whose configuration would not be part of the flight decision making process.
 
Another way of looking at it

It's not really a day/night or IFR/VMC issue.

It's a travel vs. non-travel issue.

If you built or bought an RV for travel purposes, perhaps getting to a specific airport is the whole candle -- the flight isn't really worth it if you have to divert. This is my situation. This means I'm stuck dealing with the winds at that one location. So it's not like, say, flying to Oshkosh, where I can pick and choose which airports to land at along the way depending upon conditions.

I'm much more comfortable landing in high/gusty winds in a nosedragger. A nosedragger therefore gives me more margin to land at the one airport that I want to get to. (For what it's worth, I also find it harder to land taildraggers at night; I don't know if that's unusual.)

Easier landings are an important factor for me, just as they appear to be important to insurance companies. They have apparently concluded, as I have, that a taildragger in my hands is more likely to get damaged than is a nosedragger.

Admittedly, there presumably are taildragger pilots so proficient/experienced that this isn't an issue for them. Perhaps these same people can even get insurance rates equal to a nosedragger. But I'm not one of those pilots.

So, (a) choosing a nosegear over a tailwheel airplane can actually be a pretty rational response to one's flying mission, and (b) this is true for largely the same reason that insurance companies tend to charge more to cover taildragger hulls.
 
Not really relevant to his question, but you don't need to be some kind of ace to get the same insurance rates. I probably have around a thousand hours total time (and I'm certainly no ace), but agents have always told me that my TD rate for my RV's is the same as my ND rate. But I probably have less than 50 hrs total in nose draggers. Learned in a Luscombe, continued learning in a Thorp T-18, then Swift, then RV-4, then (nose dragger) BD-4 (total of maybe 15 hrs), then another RV-4. I did pay a surcharge on the Luscombe & Swift, each until I had 50 hrs in type.

Charlie
 
Not really relevant to his question, but you don't need to be some kind of ace to get the same insurance rates. I probably have around a thousand hours total time (and I'm certainly no ace), but agents have always told me that my TD rate for my RV's is the same as my ND rate. But I probably have less than 50 hrs total in nose draggers. Learned in a Luscombe, continued learning in a Thorp T-18, then Swift, then RV-4, then (nose dragger) BD-4 (total of maybe 15 hrs), then another RV-4. I did pay a surcharge on the Luscombe & Swift, each until I had 50 hrs in type.

Charlie
Speaking as a pilot who loves his tailwheels--even did my first cross-country in a Champ--I think you accidentally hit a truth here. Your insurance rate is the same, but you have a thousand hours in conventional gear and fifty-ish in tricycle gear. I think that tells us what we need to know about insurance companies and their actuaries.

That said, I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans on a particular mission, particularly night or IFR. The airplane doesn't know where the third wheel is; the difference in risk is at landing; by the time you're landing, you're out of the clouds and can see the ground. Airplanes are stupid; they can't tell when it's night, or (ice notwithstanding) when they're in the soup. If you can handle the enroute part, you'll get to the terminal. Once you're in the terminal area, the meteorological conditions have largely ceased to be a factor, so you can have whatever configuration you want. Yes, the conventional-gear airplane will demand a little bit more from you in those last thirty seconds, but if you can't handle having the little wheel in the back during those seconds, you should have diverted to your alternate in the minutes before.

Fly what you want and enjoy it, and remember that 90% of flying is in your head, not your hands and feet.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely not working off of much data -- n=1, really. The rate on our Sportsman definitely went up when we converted it to taildragger. The hull value on that thing was relatively high, however, and we were both taildragger newbies.

Not really relevant to his question, but you don't need to be some kind of ace to get the same insurance rates. I probably have around a thousand hours total time (and I'm certainly no ace), but agents have always told me that my TD rate for my RV's is the same as my ND rate. But I probably have less than 50 hrs total in nose draggers. Learned in a Luscombe, continued learning in a Thorp T-18, then Swift, then RV-4, then (nose dragger) BD-4 (total of maybe 15 hrs), then another RV-4. I did pay a surcharge on the Luscombe & Swift, each until I had 50 hrs in type.

Charlie
 
That said, I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans on a particular mission, particularly night or IFR. The airplane doesn't know where the third wheel is; the difference in risk is at landing; by the time you're landing, you're out of the clouds and can see the ground. Airplanes are stupid; they can't tell when it's night, or (ice notwithstanding) when they're in the soup. If you can handle the enroute part, you'll get to the terminal. Once you're in the terminal area, the meteorological conditions have largely ceased to be a factor, so you can have whatever configuration you want. Yes, the conventional-gear airplane will demand a little bit more from you in those last thirty seconds, but if you can't handle having the little wheel in the back during those seconds, you should have diverted to your alternate in the minutes before.

I think we actually agree then. I don't think it's really a night/IFR issue either. I've chosen to avoid the "little bit more in the last 30 seconds" demanded by the taildragger, which (as you note) might require me to divert, because for me having to divert from my intended destination is a real mission-killer. That's not so for a lot of people, I'm sure.
 
I can't bite my tongue any more. If you are competent in your airplane this whole thread is moot.

Choose what you are happy with and GET competent. If you base you flying decisions on scaring yourself on landing, you may just be in the wrong sport.
 
Choose what you are happy with and GET competent. If you base you flying decisions on scaring yourself on landing, you may just be in the wrong sport.

Hahaha, someone has watched Top Gun too many times!

'You're dangerous Maverick...'
 
I can't bite my tongue any more. If you are competent in your airplane this whole thread is moot.

Choose what you are happy with and GET competent. If you base you flying decisions on scaring yourself on landing, you may just be in the wrong sport.


Jerry,
For me I started the thread to see if there were any "gotchas" in using an RV-7 in those conditions. I am a low hours pilot, with zero tail time. I asked the question so I can better decide if I should stick with my decision to build a taildragger or not, since I can still make the switch at this point in my build.

I am, however, going to be getting some tailwheel time (hoping this fall), so I can better estimate whether or not I want to be a tail wheel pilot, which would still leave me plenty of time to decide before buying the fuselage. At this point with my experience, I am choosing taildragger because they look better..hah. Im hoping some tailwheel time will help set the decision.
 
Jerry,
For me I started the thread to see if there were any "gotchas" in using an RV-7 in those conditions. I am a low hours pilot, with zero tail time. I asked the question so I can better decide if I should stick with my decision to build a taildragger or not, since I can still make the switch at this point in my build.

I am, however, going to be getting some tailwheel time (hoping this fall), so I can better estimate whether or not I want to be a tail wheel pilot, which would still leave me plenty of time to decide before buying the fuselage. At this point with my experience, I am choosing taildragger because they look better..hah. Im hoping some tailwheel time will help set the decision.

Go for you doing due dilligence. My point is, it's not the airplane, or landing gear configuration, it all boils down to the person holdong the stick.

Once you are comfortable and confident, not cocky, in your abilities, the wheel up front or in back makes absolutely no difference.

Best of luck and enjoy your new taildragger.👨*✈️
 
I too liked the way taildraggers look, I wanted a taildragger, so I built a taildragger. I suggest you do the same if that's what your heart is telling you.

I didn't find learning to land a taildragger difficult at all. I learned to fly in a 172, my check ride was the last tri-gear time I have in my logbook. 3 training sessions totaling approximately 6 hours in the Stinson 108 and I was signed off and haven't looked back since. With approx 350 tw hrs (75 in the Stinson then 275 in my rv) now it doesn't even register. I don't remember ever making a flight decision based on the TW for weather, winds, or night. (Full disclosure: I'm not IFR rated, but that doesn't really have an effect on landing once you're out of the clouds as others have pointed out)
 
I've got all 172 time hah. There's a Citabria and a Decathlon nearby that I plan on using one of them for the tailwheel endorsement. Both instructors are good from what I hear.
I'm really thinking of taking a staycation in the fall and just getting the tailwheel endorsement.
 
I can't bite my tongue any more. If you are competent in your airplane this whole thread is moot.

Choose what you are happy with and GET competent. If you base you flying decisions on scaring yourself on landing, you may just be in the wrong sport.

Jerry,
I completely agree with the competence point but I think there is a different aspect to consider.

Are you saying that sticking it on the ground in a 24G32 direct crosswind requires no more attention or skill in a taildragger than a nosedragger?

If so, I think that is news. There is plenty of conversation here on VAF about "how to" relating to taildragger landings. Not so much for nose draggers.

Before I started construction, I had watched groundloops occur in relatively benign weather and personally been scared ****less as a passenger in a 8 during a franticly aborted and following dicey landing on a breezy day.

I chose to not have either of those situations be a possibility in my craft.
 
Fellas we're not doing medevacs or making money getting the job done here, thats the best part of flying privately. We can choose when we want to fly and what we want to fly. You like taildraggers do you? So do I, so Im building one. If I have to sit in the hangar and crack a beer while the nosewheel guys are landing in 32kt crosswinds then let em have it. Fly what you want to fly and fly when your comphortable.
 
Last edited:
More skill?

Yes.

More attention once you have said skill?

No.

What he said. Once you know how to handle your craft, your limits and it's limits, then go travel and have fun.

I have never wished I had been in a tricycle gear plane instead of my conventional geared plane because of the wind.
 
More skill?

Yes.

More attention once you have said skill?

No.

Sorry, not buying that. While a different scale, its like saying an approach to minimums is the same effort as a sunny day landing just because one has the IFR skill.

I have never wished I had been in a tricycle gear plane instead of my conventional geared plane because of the wind.

Similarly, I have never wished I was in a conventional gear plane vs my trike in the wind.


Pretty obvious this belongs in the never ending debates. I'm not changing my mind and I imagine the tail dragger folks are not either. I'm done.
 
I'm an average-skilled pilot.

I dom better landings at night in my taildragger RV-6 than I do by day.

It isn't an issue. There are more significant considerations about night and IFR ops than landing gear configuration.

- mark
 
It would be interesting to know if anyone has switched from tailwheel to tri-gear? or chose tri-gear over a desire for tailwheel with a tailwheel sign off. That is, has anyone had experience to be comfortable with a tailwheel, wanted a tailwheel (as it seems like the OP does), but still went tri-gear for safety/wind/etc.?

As with most never-ending discussions you mostly get people arguing for "their" side or justifying what they chose. From what I see in this thread, you have tailwheel pilots telling you that after your comfortable, you won't even think of it anymore. Which I can honestly say is where I'm at now. On the other hand, you have Tri-gear pilots telling how much safer or less stressful the tri-gear is without actual tailwheel experience to base that on. I could be wrong, it's happened before.

This discussion is not without merit, as you will see when you get tailwheel time later this summer it sounds like. Landing with the wheel in the back is a new skill, and will take additional attention for a while. Just like flying was a new skill when you started, as you gain experience you get more comfortable. The bottom line, IMO, is that if you want a taildragger don't let fear talk you out of it.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents

A taildragger is always trying to swap ends on you. A nosedragger is always trying to straighten out. Those are just facts of their landing gear geometry.

Both can handle similar crosswind conditions with proper technique (which is essentially the same technique for both if done properly). But a taildragger is inherently less forgiving of a lapse in technique or moment of inattention.

A lapse in technique or moment of inattention is more likely to occur when the pilot is tired after a long or stressful trip, as could certainly occur when IFR or at night. I know I've been tired after some trips.

Insurance is higher on taildraggers for a reason.

That said, to each his/her own with eyes open.
 
I bought a tail wheel because my primary mission is fun. If it had been primarily for transportation, I'd have gone tricycle.

In tricky winds a tail wheel is less forgiving of mistakes, and as others have noted insurance reflects that. I have about 150 hours in TW and still would opt for a tricycle on a really windy day at the end of a long flight!

I rarely "need" to be anywhere at a particular time when I fly, so if crosswinds look sketchy, I just go elsewhere or wait it out. That would be less than ideal if I was on a schedule or had people depending on me / my transportation.

Sort of like cars? Fun car is rear wheel drive, stick shift, squirrely. Daily driver a big heavy automatic with traction control because I just want the best chance to get there :)
 
N=1 but...

My hangar neighbor is basically the guy you're talking about. He is a very experienced taildragger pilot and owns several aircraft, conventional and tri. He says he prefers to fly a nosedragger if he is traveling somewhere, since he doesn't have to worry as much about what the winds are doing (or might be doing) at his destination.

Also my view, especially since I'm much less experienced in taildraggers.

Again, I think it's a travel and risk-assessment issue, not an IFR/night issue. And certainly reasonable people can differ, especially all the taildragger aces.

But there's a reason many of us see higher insurance rates for taildraggers.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has switched from tailwheel to tri-gear? or chose tri-gear over a desire for tailwheel with a tailwheel sign off. That is, has anyone had experience to be comfortable with a tailwheel, wanted a tailwheel (as it seems like the OP does), but still went tri-gear for safety/wind/etc.?

As with most never-ending discussions you mostly get people arguing for "their" side or justifying what they chose. From what I see in this thread, you have tailwheel pilots telling you that after your comfortable, you won't even think of it anymore. Which I can honestly say is where I'm at now. On the other hand, you have Tri-gear pilots telling how much safer or less stressful the tri-gear is without actual tailwheel experience to base that on. I could be wrong, it's happened before.

This discussion is not without merit, as you will see when you get tailwheel time later this summer it sounds like. Landing with the wheel in the back is a new skill, and will take additional attention for a while. Just like flying was a new skill when you started, as you gain experience you get more comfortable. The bottom line, IMO, is that if you want a taildragger don't let fear talk you out of it.
 
When I decided to go for an "A" model, I thought about landing after an instrument approach in windy conditions but the determining factor for me was insurance rates - they were higher for taildraggers than trikes across the board.
 
Back
Top