I think most taildragger trainer conversions would still require the pushrod setup due to the tail (rudder and elevator design) not engineered for the tailwheel setup.

Hmmm I dunno about that, it depends on the type of setup you use. I'm retro-fitting a tailwheel to my Tiger 2 and I plan on just running the steering springs off two control horns from the rudder..........observe: http://rtccom.net/~mattb/pics/tiger_tailwheel.jpg

This is a C.B. Tatone tailwheel assembly, with a DuBro wheel. It actually comes with a control horn to attach to the rudder, but it's black (the rudder will be white here), and quite bulky. I plan on mounting two control horns, and secure the end that would normally have the backplate on it with the parts of the original backplate that are threaded. This will allow me to run the steering springs from the outside hole of each control horn to the steering arm mounted to the tailwheel bracket. I like the leaf-spring setup of this assembly, and the scale-like spring steering, plus it all keeps stress off the rudder. Only real problem presented by the retro-fit was getting at the other side of the bottom fuselage planking, hence the two cutouts you see in the pic. A bit of balsa and filler will take care of this later.

I fit a new tailwheel assembly to my Cub using the more standard plastic bracket setup. The wire the wheel mounts to is bent at 90*, above the bracket, so it sticks out to the side. I ran a small length of control rod from this to the control horn on the rudder, for steering. The way I have it set up doesn't give quite as much travel as I like, but it's good enough for controlling the plane on takeoff and landing. Taxiing is a problem (can't turn left very sharply) but I think this has to do with the bracket not being mounted correctly (the bottom of the fuse where the bracket mounts is too rough to mount the assembly directly......had to mount it to a hardwood block and epoxy the block onto the fuselage, and it seems to be at a bit of an angle now............)

-Matt Bailey

On mine, the slab elevator doesn't allow access to the rudder to hook up the springs. That would have been the prefered method, but it wasn't too difficult to hook up a pushrod to it. Look at the picture of the tail in my post and you will see what I mean. I looked at the picture on your site, that is the exact same tailwheel I used. If you look carefully at my post, you may see the lump where I added some 3/16 ply to the underside of the fuselage. (But none of this will help to explain why intelinside would want to convert to a tailwheel...) It was still fun making it work, and flying the result.

I'll just echo what others have said: The VAST majority of REAL aircraft (pre-jet) are taildraggers so if you have any desires whatsoever to fly anything even slightly scale you'll need to become a taildragger pilot. And who needs the hassles of nose gear. Good riddence! BTW, converting a trainer is easy as pie!

One more reason for a tail wheel is that if you are learning to fly remember take offs are optional but landings are mandatory. learning to land with a nose wheel can be much more painfull than with a tail wheel. Rough landings can bend your nose gear or damage the rudder servo but one really big pain in the butt problem is boken firewalls. Since the nose gear is generally attached on the firewall it can damage it and that fix can be time consuming. I had 2 avistars and converted both. The first after 1/2 dozen flights and the 2nd right away. Also minimal maintainence compared to nose gear. good luck, feep

abufletcher.....that's a good looking plane, dude!

One question I have for all those experienced builders / flyers is if I don't want to hassle with a tail wheel can I just use a bent and curved piece of stout wire coming out of the tail. It would be inserted into the tail assembly and come down at an angle and then curved at the bottom and just drag on the ground. No steering but wouldn't the rudder do that?

Crashem, You're my bud but I have to disagree with you here. You're right that making good landings and rollout will help your nose gear not bend but a rough field will put extra stress on the nose gear even with perfect landings.

Stationary the nose gear supports very little weight and is therefor designed for that. (we already know RC planes are over engineered and that includes the nose gear). What happens when you hit a small bump? There's a force pushing up on the nose gear and also a force pushing back. It's the small force pushing back that's the problem. The back force is just like putting on the brakes but the nose gear hits the bump first so it's only the nose gear putting on the brakes. This cause the weight to shift forward and put even more weight on the nose gear. Hence it getting bent sometimes.

Make a good rollout by hold the stick back and don't just simply release it as the plane touches down. In real aircraft they teach you to hold as much weight off the nose gear as you can throughout the entire landing, rollout and taxi. At some point after touchdown you should have the stick all the way back and keep it there until you park to save that nose gear.

Just to answer the original question in a different way....

Don't convert from Tricycle to "Taildragger"! What you really want is a "Conventional Landing Gear" setup. That is why you *want* to convert. You want a conventional plane.

The fact that people call the conventional setup "Taildragger" is basically demeaning.... ;-)

gus

Because....


REAL PILOTS FLY TAILDRAGGERS!

What? Taildragger is a cool word and if you can fly one it's a badge of honor. It's even more honorable if you have a tail skid instead of an actual wheel.

Of course I'm the best because I've taken off, flown, landed with a tail skid and only an LG on one side. Yes, the wing dragging in the dirt for take off was an amazing sight. You all can bow in honor of my wonderful greatness.

The only reason would be to keep the model operational if a heavy landing has really mashed up the nose wheel and firewall.
Once you have mastered the practical side of landing, whether or not your model has a trike gear or is a tail dragger, should not make any difference.

Tail draggers are just plain fun to land!
Glen

rdhot:

My first trainer was a 3ch kit built taildragger with a wooden dowel in the tail instead of a tail wheel. I was learning myself and had some hard time with the ground handling but once I got used to it there was no problem and I had tons of fun with it. Now I have even made a copy of that trainer with a fixed metal wire tailgear.

Taxiing in crosswind is hard or impossible depending on the wind but take offs are possible at any direction. The plane tends to windsock all the time so taking off upwind is easy. A powerful rudder is necessary in crosswinds. In taxiing I have to play with throttle to put some propwash to the rudder without accelerating too much.

Both the tail wire and the dowel have a habit of wearing out. It might be a good idea to desing the attachment so that you can later change the wire easily in case you need a new one.

Thanks Joonas. I'll take all that into consideration. I just didn't know if I could configure it with a wheel.

I think you are 100% correct. The thing is most trainers have trike gear. People who fly trainers generally have not mastered the practical side of landing when they begin.

Taildraggers just look cool.... that's all the reason I need.

Back in post #16, someone said that the reason that aircraft changed to tricycle U/C was only to "make learning to fly easier", but another major reason was to make taxiing easier.
When sitting in a taildragger at a busy airfield, it's just about impossible to see ahead and it was a recipie for disaster with so many "would be" pilots, (like myself) around!

However, I don't really think that this reason applies to RC, and one type is just as easy to use as the other.

As for steerable tailwheels, skids etc. on model aircraft, - I've seen them fly, taxi, takeoff and land with nothing else but the two mainwheels! - ( I've flown them too), - without any difficulty I might add! [X(]