Could WW2 updated aircraft be of any use nowadays. (Obviously not in a dogfight)

[Procrastintor]

Oh, alright then. Guess I never noticed (consciously) that there werent any taildraggers in Air Forces anymore.

 

[Marcel]

Why? I'm sure taildraggers have SOME benefits over trikes.

The looks, trikes just look bloody boring in comparison

 

[swampyankee]

What benefits?

The landing gear in a taildragger weighs less.

The worst landing gear system is bicycle gear. Why, why, why?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The landing gear in a taildragger weighs less.

All benefits of a tail dragger are outweighed by those of standard landing gear configurations when it comes to military aircraft (with the exception of some helicopters).

 

[GrauGeist]

The performance benefits of a nose gear versus tail gear is worth the extra weight, and even then (unless you're into air-racing), it's not much of a penalty

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The performance benefits of a nose gear versus tail gear is worth the extra weight, and even then (unless you're into air-racing), it's not much of a penalty

Exactly

 

[swampyankee]

All benefits of a tail dragger are outweighed by those of standard landing gear configurations when it comes to military aircraft (with the exception of some helicopters).

Today, in 2013, no one would design a retractable-gear taildragger aircraft. There are modern (post-1970) taildraggers designed in three groups: very weight sensitive aircraft, such as those for competition aerobatics, agricultural aircraft, which typically operate off impromptu fields -- the nose leg of a tricycle-geared aircraft are more susceptible to damage than the main gear or tail wheel of an aircraft with conventional gear -- and homebuilts, for people who want to avoid the drag of a nose leg or who just want a taildragger.

 

[gumbyk]

NONE! They are harder to fly, easier to ground loop and require more training, that's why they went away as far as military aircraft are concerned. A modern military is not going to risk purchasing an aircraft that has any additional risk in it's normal operation.

Most of the flying is the same, its just the take-off and landing that is more difficult!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Today, in 2013, no one would design a retractable-gear taildragger aircraft. There are modern (post-1970) taildraggers designed in three groups: very weight sensitive aircraft, such as those for competition aerobatics, agricultural aircraft, which typically operate off impromptu fields -- the nose leg of a tricycle-geared aircraft are more susceptible to damage than the main gear or tail wheel of an aircraft with conventional gear -- and homebuilts, for people who want to avoid the drag of a nose leg or who just want a taildragger.

We however are not talking civilian aircraft. There is no benefit to a taildragging military aircraft in todays design, mission and capabilities.

 

[GrauGeist]

Today, in 2013, no one would design a retractable-gear taildragger aircraft. There are modern (post-1970) taildraggers designed in three groups: very weight sensitive aircraft, such as those for competition aerobatics, agricultural aircraft, which typically operate off impromptu fields -- the nose leg of a tricycle-geared aircraft are more susceptible to damage than the main gear or tail wheel of an aircraft with conventional gear -- and homebuilts, for people who want to avoid the drag of a nose leg or who just want a taildragger.

Just a quick observation...I've seen far more tail-strikes on tricycle geared A/C than I have damaged nose gear. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm sitting here trying to think of the last time I saw a civil craft with nose-gear damage and I'm drawing a blank...

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe several countries still use the An-3 in a military roll and from what I have read, the tail dragger handle skies better.

Why are most modern biplanes still produced as tail draggers? Is just one of those "That's the way we have always done it"?

 

[swampyankee]

I believe several countries still use the An-3 in a military roll and from what I have read, the tail dragger handle skies better.

Why are most modern biplanes still produced as tail draggers? Is just one of those "That's the way we have always done it"?

I'd consider "modern biplane" to be largely an oxymoron. Except for the An-2 and its derivatives and a few specialized agricultural aircraft, like the Grumman Agcat, I believe all biplanes designed after the mid 1940s have been either aerobatic aircraft, such as those by Pitts, or homebuilt aircraft. I don't know why Antonov specified conventional gear for its An-2; the Agcat was designed to operate off impromptu fields, where damage to nose gear was considered likely.

 

[gumbyk]

Just a quick observation...I've seen far more tail-strikes on tricycle geared A/C than I have damaged nose gear. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm sitting here trying to think of the last time I saw a civil craft with nose-gear damage and I'm drawing a blank...

They're a fairly regular occurrence in the training sector. And, if you're talking about damage incidents, then nose gear damage is more prevalent. tail-strikes, in my experience, generally do not do as much damage.