thanks @Silvaire. Yes, I do realise that thread drift is a big thing on this site 
Still, returning to the subject, e.g. the fitting of a camera for external view, the reasons are being explained at 0:21 in the video. Ground ops, no talk about landing or taking-off.
And taxiing this 195 will give the pilot a better view of the right forward side for coming obstacles (since not hidden by the wing itself…), than say in most sbs low wing TDs.
I certainly didn’t miss the point you’re making @Dan, in saying that in my view (pun intended) planes “having no forward view in the most critical phases of operation are a really unfortunate artifact of history” Those most critical phases of operation are on the ground, taking off or landing. Lindbergh could find his way from place to place with zero forward view, once airborne. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough on that point.
Tailwheel RVs aren’t a big problem in my limited experience but this photo gives some idea of what it’s like to look forward out of a C195 while in those critical phases of operation. It makes a P-51 forward view look expansive.
well guys, alas none of you got the point… a camera like this fitted on a taildragger, if for ground use for a low wing craft.
L4/J3, Luscombe, C-195, etc., etc, have good downward vis and don’t have the need for such a camera.
A camera like this hopefully permits early recognition of cones, signs, dead rabbit, and so forth prior to hitting said obstacle with your wing, pitot tube, wheel pant, or else. Take any of the popular side-by-side Vans RV as an example, and the right forward side is quite blind to the pilot whilst taxiing (and during the flare, but that is another subject altogether).
chflyer wrote:
while old-timers might scoff at it as a crutch for those without the necessary piloting skills
I think it’s cool :smile
Silvaire wrote:
I’m just not greatly attracted to flying anything that has no view out the front, and preferably out the back and sides too.
I share this sentiment. One of the reasons I like the bubble canopies of the Aquila A210 or similar aircraft like a DA-20 Katana, the all around view is great. Of course those aren’t taildraggers.
Certainty older, high powered tail draggers have this issue to a greater degree and if the owners find a camera useful, they’ll install it. More modern designs don’t typically have an issue but the Pipistrel Panthera could certainly use a forward facing camera, with its forward view so heavily compromised. Also the owners would likely find it clever, as opposed to being another thing to maintain.
I’m just not greatly attracted to flying anything that has no view out the front, and preferably out the back and sides too.
chflyer wrote:
It does raise the question though about the line between useful technology applications and gadgetry.
If it improves safety and is easy to install, then why not. Some tail draggers have notoriously bad view to the front.
I recently installed a rear view cam on my old Camry because the parking spaces in our parkhouse make for lots of dents. Gadget? Yes. Useful? You bet.
What makes weight less of an issue for cars is that for a given weight the power used to overcome rolling friction is less than the power used to overcome the induced drag that holds an aircraft of equivalent weight in the air. A train then takes this even further by eliminating rubber tires, which are most significant source of rolling friction in a car.
Between those three cases is a trade-off between flexibility and efficiency, typical of how engineering and life in general works. The plane can go in any direction, the car needs roads, the train can only go where rails allow it to go.
I don’t think a taxi camera for a taildragger is technology overkill, but rather it is a weird mishmash of anachronisms, since a taildragger as such is the opposite of “technology”.
In principle I am in favour of using modern technology to enhance the experience and possibilities of flying GA aircraft. The advancements in cars in the last decades are indicative of what is possible. The only problem is that the weight penalty of additional gadgets is much more severe in aircraft than it is in cars, where the greatly increased motorisation has offset the weight increase.
Silvaire wrote:
I might make an exception for a Pitts.
What about ForeFlight Synt-Vision? my problem grass runway is not on FF database and I get nervous in Pitts in big runways that are in FF database: taxi one all the way to from T3-Apron-T1 at LeTouquet on a very windy day: wet pants and hands guaranteed 
