Whats best for Off Airport Landings?

[Jokerc152]

Lets settle this argument

[Jokerc152]

seems like its a pretty one sided argument at the moment where have all the tri gear fanatics went :S?

[DaveSims]

Too many variables, pavement, grass, hard ground, soft ground, plowed ground, water, snow, etc. 

[Club508]

Well, I miised my chance to enter this one, but I'd actually say tri gear.  Tri gears tend to be more modern, and also, they don't hop as much.  Plus, on takeoff, you get a more flat lineup between the engine pitch and the horizon, so you accelerate more instead of wasting 25-50% of your power uselessly trying to climb until your tail comes up.
The only advantage I can see for taildraggers is having the rear lift off for less friction on takeoff, though that can become your downfall on the landing, where friction is wanted.

[wifesaysno]

Now this is an age old debate with bush pilots! From an aerodynamic stand point the tail-drager's principle advantage is a higher wing incidence and thus higher angle of attack during the take off roll. This is a by product of the plane being tilted nose up from having its tail on the ground. (you all knew that probably), so anyways, higher AoA, higher lift. However, tri gears allow for better visibility as was mentioned before. This would be very handy when you are trying to land on a very specific location. Ultimately though it comes down to pilot preference. Take Jim Tweeto for example, he stands by his tail-drager.

[Hagar]

Having seen the conditions under which bush pilots operate I would say that aircraft with a tricycle undercarriage are unsuitable for anything except prepared runways. From my own observations they also require a much longer take-off run than the average taildragger. I can't imagine this being possible in a trike. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6B8-PNYjzk&feature=related

[CHUCK79]

Well said, Doug.....I agree completely 8-) 8-)

Cool video

[Jokerc152]

well it just seems that tail draggers are the chosen favorite here