Tapping brakes on gear retract?

[Pinecone]

I wear racing shoes when racing.  For feel and also because they are Nomex and would keep my feet from being burned.

For track days, I wear my normal day to day sports shoes.  I am not pushing the limits to the point of needing that fine of feel as I do in the race car.

I have flown in boots (USAF) and thinner shoes and for most flying, they are all fine.  Maybe in aerobatic competition flying, thin soles might be good.

[Shadrach]

I know a few folks that take off their shoes to fly Tailwheel aircraft. I think it’s silly to be honest. I can heel and toe reasonably well in street shoes, which requires a more delicate and precise touch than managing the yaw axis of a taildragger. 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Rock climbers like shoes that are pliable and give a lot of feeling, too, so those sorts of shoes might work well!

 I don’t do any climbing these days but what we wore in the 90s and early aughts were pretty uncomfortable and not as pliable (with a foot in them) as one might think. They are designed to be supportive platforms for edging on the tiniest of foot holds (I’ve put almost the entirety of my body weight on “holds” the size of a .177 BB). They do what they do quite well, but they bind the foot and toes together into a sort of single platform… taking them off was always a relief.

[wombat]

The only time I wish I had thinner shoes is when I'm providing instruction to PPL students or new tailwheel pilots.   In those cases I want to feel what they are doing on the rudder without putting enough pressure on that they might feel what I'm doing which could cause them to change their behavior or think I'm trying to take over.

[A64Pilot]

18 hours ago, Hank said:

I don't understand the need for super thin soles to drive or fly. I've done plenty of both [living in WV for flight school and seven years of Mooney ownership] wearing insulated hiking boots . . . .

What's the need to "feel" the pedals so much????? I can tell where on the pedals my feet are while wearing any shoes or boots that I own, and I've never worn anything like these.

I’ve got thousands of hours wearing boots, 5,000 in Army boots, Stupid thick and heavy ones in Korea and Bosnia (Matterhorn’s) for the cold and mud, most of my Crop duster flying was in John Deere slip on boots.

But both of those aircraft had big pedals spaced wide apart, pretty much shoulder width. A Mooney’s itty bitty pedals spaced real close together I can maybe see the point, except you really don’t do much with your feet in a Mooney, not like a Helicopter or tail wheel Crop duster anyway.

Hardest thing people have with transitioning to a tail wheel is accepting the fact that one inch of pedal movement isn’t likely to be enough, they know to add pedal, just don’t understand how much may be required. But oddly people who learn in a tail wheel don’t have any trouble with a nose wheel, you have to have an endorsement for tail wheel, but not one for a nosewheel. Trivia but a tail wheel is known as conventional gear, so what does that make a nosewheel?

I’ve done some recreational Auto racing, I think the thin soles primarily tell you that your feet are correctly placed and you didn’t inadvertently put them on the corner or something more than giving any feedback feel. You really don’t want your foot to come off the brake as you pass your braking marker.

Motorcycle racing we wore really stiff boots of course, yet people can handle the rear brake, you don’t use it much though, but shifting isn’t a problem.

So yeah I think it’s what you get used to, I had to fly wearing gloves in the Military but I think it would be silly to wear them in my Mooney, unless it was stupid cold maybe.

[LANCECASPER]

10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Trivia but a tail wheel is known as conventional gear, so what does that make a nosewheel?

Tricycle gear.

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

So yeah I think it’s what you get used to, I had to fly wearing gloves in the Military but I think it would be silly to wear them in my Mooney, unless it was stupid cold maybe.

I wore heavy gloves on virtually every winter flight when I lived in WV. Being a displaced Southern boy (since returned home, thank the Lord!), winter could start as early as October--I judged by the thermometer not the calendar!

[Shadrach]

42 minutes ago, Hank said:

I wore heavy gloves on virtually every winter flight when I lived in WV. Being a displaced Southern boy (since returned home, thank the Lord!), winter could start as early as October--I judged by the thermometer not the calendar!

You’re missing out Hank. I’m less than 10 miles from the WV Border. It’s a balmy 22° and warming. We’ve had sunrise temps as low as 12° this week. Never mind the windchill.  

[Hank]

57 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You’re missing out Hank. I’m less than 10 miles from the WV Border. It’s a balmy 22° and warming. We’ve had sunrise temps as low as 12° this week. Never mind the windchill.  

I'm not "missing" anything!

Here in Lower Alabama, it was 14° yesterday morning, windchill 3°. This morning was a balmy 21°. After warming into the 40s today and tomorrow, another slug of cold air will blow in, before we warm back up into the 60s early next week.

I haven't been this cold for this long since January 2014. Then again, I drove down to Sweet Home on 4 February 2014!

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Tricycle gear.

I think unconventional  

I outgrew tricycles when I was three or four maybe.

I think a Mooney would be a perfect T/W. Less complex, lighter weight, faster due to smaller frontal area, and most important to me lots more leg room without that nose wheel well right in the center of the floor, and I think it would be easier to get into and out of with the trailing edge of the wing lower to the ground, more prop clearance making prop strikes less likely and less wear from rocks and sand. Might could even run a longer prop and be more efficient, even faster still.

I think LoPresti was onto something with his Fury, would have been much better / faster if it had been an M20 though with the Laminar flow wing etc.

Only draw back I see is it would require greater pilot proficiency.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I wore heavy gloves on virtually every winter flight when I lived in WV. Being a displaced Southern boy (since returned home, thank the Lord!), winter could start as early as October--I judged by the thermometer not the calendar!

Yeah, When I Retired we moved aboard a sailboat, the plan was to chase 80 degrees, if it got warmer head North, cooler head South. Always wore T shirt, shorts and flip flops. Would probably still be on the boat except for health (knees) and the Pandemic.

I’ve just recently as in about a month ago transitioned to shoes having discoverd slip in ones. With a temp knee replacement it got hard to scrub my feet every time I showered which if you wear sandals you have to, and tying shoes is a no go and even without tying I had to have a stupid long shoe horn

Even in Central Fl though it’s been cold lately requiring a coat that I had to buy. I think maybe I didn’t move far enough South, but S Fl isn’t an option as it’s apparently a Suburb of NJ and NY and I’m not from there.

Probably should have stayed in Jax but hindsight is 20/20.

Cmon on Global warming, shouldn’t we be toasty warm in Jan by now? Since the Oceans are boiling and all.

[LANCECASPER]

21 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I think unconventional  

I outgrew tricycles when I was three or four maybe.

I think a Mooney would be a perfect T/W. Less complex, lighter weight, faster due to smaller frontal area, and most important to me lots more leg room without that nose wheel well right in the center of the floor, and I think it would be easier to get into and out of with the trailing edge of the wing lower to the ground, more prop clearance making prop strikes less likely and less wear from rocks and sand. Might could even run a longer prop and be more efficient, even faster still.

I think LoPresti was onto something with his Fury, would have been much better / faster if it had been an M20 though with the Laminar flow wing etc.

Only draw back I see is it would require greater pilot proficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricycle_landing_gear#:~:text=Tricycle gear is a type,of the center of gravity.

[A64Pilot]

From your link

The taildragger configuration has its own advantages, and is arguably more suited to rougher landing strips. The tailwheel makes the plane sit naturally in a nose-up attitude when on the ground, which is useful for operations on unpaved gravel surfaces where debris could damage the propeller. The tailwheel also transmits loads to the airframe in a way much less likely to cause airframe damage when operating on rough fields. The small tailwheel is much lighter and much less vulnerable than a nosewheel. Also, a fixed-gear taildragger exhibits less interference drag and form drag in flight than a fixed-gear tricycle aircraft whose nosewheel may sit directly in the propeller's slipstream. Tailwheels are smaller and cheaper to buy and to maintain. Most tailwheel aircraft are lower in overall height and thus may fit in lower hangars. Tailwheel aircraft are also more suitable for fitting with skis in wintertime.^[2]

seem to be lots of advantages to me, excepting requiring greater proficiency

[A64Pilot]

I know it’s not going to happen about like wishing for a turbine M20.

Just spit balling, but if there was a tail wheel M20 I’d prefer it over the nose wheel.

[r0ckst4r]

11 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

From your link

The taildragger configuration has its own advantages, and is arguably more suited to rougher landing strips. The tailwheel makes the plane sit naturally in a nose-up attitude when on the ground, which is useful for operations on unpaved gravel surfaces where debris could damage the propeller. The tailwheel also transmits loads to the airframe in a way much less likely to cause airframe damage when operating on rough fields. The small tailwheel is much lighter and much less vulnerable than a nosewheel. Also, a fixed-gear taildragger exhibits less interference drag and form drag in flight than a fixed-gear tricycle aircraft whose nosewheel may sit directly in the propeller's slipstream. Tailwheels are smaller and cheaper to buy and to maintain. Most tailwheel aircraft are lower in overall height and thus may fit in lower hangars. Tailwheel aircraft are also more suitable for fitting with skis in wintertime.^[2]

seem to be lots of advantages to me, excepting requiring greater proficiency

Looks like the only advantage is grass, gravel or other unpaved runway.   We fly retractable so the bit about the nose wheel does not apply and would be superior in drag to the fixed gear tail dragger.

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, r0ckst4r said:

Looks like the only advantage is grass, gravel or other unpaved runway.   We fly retractable so the bit about the nose wheel does not apply and would be superior in drag to the fixed gear tail dragger.

A tail wheel conversion would require a complete redesigned of the main gear location it would indeed eliminate all of the flat plate area from the gear doors. The biggest benefit would be the elimination of he nose gear well. That would create an un obstructed footwell from sidewall to side wall.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

A tail wheel conversion would require a complete redesigned of the main gear location it would indeed eliminate all of the flat plate area from the gear doors. The biggest benefit would be the elimination of he nose gear well. That would create an un obstructed footwell from sidewall to side wall.

Well that plus reduce weight, complexity by a lot plus move the bottom cowl way up because it doesn’t have to house a nose wheel, there by significantly reducing drag by quite a bit.

LoPresti's Fury as an example, pretty sure it had a 200 HP Lycoming angle valve, but I believe he had the 540 in mind.

Of course we won’t likely ever see anymore Mooney’s period, much less a taildragger, but I’d like one. This is all just dreaming.

 

 

 

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Well that plus reduce weight, complexity by a lot plus move the bottom cowl way up because it doesn’t have to house a nose wheel, there by significantly reducing drag by quite a bit.

LoPresti's Fury as an example, pretty sure it had a 200 HP Lycoming angle valve, but I believe he had the 540 in mind.

Of course we won’t likely ever see anymore Mooney’s period, much less a taildragger, but I’d like one. This is all just dreaming.

 

 

 

The Fury was an intriguing concept. If Piper had not gone bankrupt who knows how many might have been delivered.

On the short and medium bodies, the entirety of nose gear assembly (which is dirt simple in manual form) is housed aft of the firewall. It is mounted directly to the steel cage and recesses within the confines of the cages. Eliminating it would have no effect on drag beyond what is created by the gear doors. Given the ridiculous nature of this thought exercise, I suppose that you could hack up the cage while redesigning the wings to move the gear forward of CG.

[A64Pilot]

Yes it would have a significant effect, but of course your not going to believe that.

It would be orders more magnitude than adding another pilot door, so it would never happen of course.

The parts count in the nose wheel with steering et all is significant.

I think the Fury wouldn’t have made it even if Piper built it, it was based on too old a design.

In fact a more modern but very similar design was built, the MICCO which was based on the Meyers 145.

I guess your going to tell me this airplane frontal area isn’t smaller than a Mooney, it has a 540 in it.

 

 

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Of course we won’t likely ever see anymore Mooney’s period, much less a taildragger, but I’d like one. This is all just dreaming.

The Fury had lots of potential, and looked like too much fun. 

But if you think the Mooney landing accident rate is bad now, put a couple thousand tailwheel models out in the wild and see what it looks like then!  

[A64Pilot]

It’s pure fantasy of course. I couldn’t afford one even if they started producing them tomorrow and gave Mooneyspace customers a 50% discount.  

The Fury wasn’t really all that fast as it just wasn’t a fast design, and the Micco isn’t either, largely due I think to the huge cockpit bubble.

But I think a Mooney could be, the wings they’re not much drag reduction to be had in the wings I think and all the easy stuff’s been done, leaving hard things only.

The other thing that would reduce drag I’m sure is if we could wasp waist the tail area. I think there is a lot of drag there.

Give me a few Million and I think there is another 5 kts in a J, maybe more.

But sadly I don’t think it would sell, people want car sized room, like a Cirrus and people are bigger than they used to be, making the cockpit wider might just wipe out any speed gains you made in other areas.

I don’t know squat about an Acclaim, but I think it’s faster than a Cirrus isn’t it?

When I fly with another Adult I have their seat slid back so our shoulders don’t overlap, if I do so in my C-140 the windows have to be open so we can stick our arms out that gives more room than you might think.

[JohnB]

Great topic! I've pondered this question! I used to tap the brakes on takeoff when I remember, but it was not part of my absolute checklist. I started doing it much more once when I noted abnormal wear on the side of one of my main tires requiring a tire replacement. Mechanic checked it, turns out a part of the inner gear door assembly somehow got bent, and when the main tire retracted, it touched this piece, and the tire was stopped. The gear assembly was shaped back into position after changing the tire, so it probably won't happen again, but if I had made it a practice to stop my tires before they enter the doors, no tire destroying side wear would have happened.  

 

And @amillet I too mastered the slide rule back in the day! Like an E6B on steroids!