SonexBuilders.net

It seems that Trike gear sonex's are not so common. I've been wondering about the differences and what trike drives like and wonder about those of you who have flown both the trike and TW. Since I operate on a soft (this time of year) sod field, I generally use my best short field takeoff technique. I got to thinking about the geometry of the two configurations and figure it would be possible to get more angle of attack in a trike (mains on the ground). This would lend it's self to shorter take-off & landing rolls. What do you think?

I can land pretty short in my TW Waiex. With a 3 point takeoff I get off the ground pretty quickly. Tailwheel should be lighter and less drag.

BRS wrote:It seems that Trike gear sonex's are not so common. I've been wondering about the differences and what trike drives like and wonder about those of you who have flown both the trike and TW. Since I operate on a soft (this time of year) sod field, I generally use my best short field takeoff technique. I got to thinking about the geometry of the two configurations and figure it would be possible to get more angle of attack in a trike (mains on the ground). This would lend it's self to shorter take-off & landing rolls. What do you think?

In theory, you are correct. This has been discussed in many forums regarding aircraft that can be found in both configurations - Cessna 170 vs 172, Piper Pacer vs Tri-Pacer, etc. While the theory has scientific basis, in actual practice you really don't see a noticeable difference in takeoff performance. Certainly not in the Sonex, at least in my experience.

All other things being equal - I think the trike is heavier. So anything you gain in Angle of Attack - you might lose in hauling more weight off the ground.

Yeah Graeme, but that’s in theory. In PRACTICE your ego will be so much lighter in the trike that the extra wheel in the front is compensated for.

Gordon

Let's not forget the ground will probably repel a nosedragger more.*

*Nosewheel bashing in jest, inspired by Gordon's comment.

Whhhaaaaaaaatttttttttt??????

Me? Bias????

BRS wrote:It seems that Trike gear sonex's are not so common. I've been wondering about the differences and what trike drives like and wonder about those of you who have flown both the trike and TW. Since I operate on a soft (this time of year) sod field, I generally use my best short field takeoff technique. I got to thinking about the geometry of the two configurations and figure it would be possible to get more angle of attack in a trike (mains on the ground). This would lend it's self to shorter take-off & landing rolls. What do you think?

No shame in using training wheels, we all started somewhere ;)

In all seriousness, taildraggers are generally more capable. Although they are slightly more difficult to get handle on, they handle grass, soft, and off-airport fields better (the later is not something I would try in a Sonex), are generally faster, more maneuverable, look nicer (subjective I suppose, but you know it's true). I've been running mine exclusively on grass with the stock tires and wheel pants with zero issues. The only downside I've found on the stock tires is it takes more power to taxi, bigger wheels roll easier on grass.

If it's soft/grass field you are after tailwheel is the way. You dig that nose gear in, you'll wreck it, and the prop, and the engine. There is a reason almost all bush planes sit on a conventional gear. I'm not saying, it can't be done, I'm just saying there is a better/easier/safer way. If you want to increase your initial angle of attack, put larger front tires on, That being said, STOL isn't really the mission of the Sonex. So I'm not sure the angle of attack will change your lift off distance all that much, It's a wing size and shape limitation. STOL planes have large fat wings. In general, taildraggers can be landed shorter, as you can apply heavy braking without worry the nose wheel will dig in.

I'll qualify my opinion with, I was a professional bush pilot in the Arctic flying SuperCubs, exclusively off airport in the MacKenzie Mountains, as well as Cessna 206 on unimproved strips, gravel, grass, packed snow. I also flew a Modified PA-22 Tri Pacer on Floats and a SuperCub and Aeronca L-16 on Skis.

The tail skid (on the nose dragger) and the tail wheel also sit at about the same plane, so I doubt that you can get much more AOA without engaging the tow hook. ;-)

OneTallShort wrote:The tail skid (on the nose dragger) and the tail wheel also sit at about the same plane, so I doubt that you can get much more AOA without engaging the tow hook. ;-)

But, the mains are further back.

When I want to land short, I plant the tailwheel first and there is plenty AOA at touchdown. And a 3 point takeoff with a notch of flaps gets you off the ground startlingly fast.

I think the best rationale for a nosedragger is wanting one.