Unconventional Landings

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Tailwheel airplanes-

I was reading an article and from I gather, there are 2 types of landings one can make in a tailwheel airplane, Wheel and Full Stall.

Why would a pilot choose one over the other? Which is preferred and why?



And why does PoA flag my spelling of tailwheel?:wink2:
 
Not to be a smartypants.....but, try landing in the mojave desert on a hot and windy summer day with crosswinds(the normal 30degrees or so at 25 knots gusting to 30 at Gen Fox in Lancaster, Ca) using full stall....you'll get blown off the runway.
 
In my limited tailwheel experience I prefer wheel landings - They look better

Three pointers are okay too I guess.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Tailwheel airplanes-

I was reading an article and from I gather, there are 2 types of landings one can make in a tailwheel airplane, Wheel and Full Stall.

Why would a pilot choose one over the other? Which is preferred and why?



And why does PoA flag my spelling of tailwheel?:wink2:
Click to expand...

The article didn't mention my technique,,,three to four bounces ,a drunken weave back to the hangar and change of undies ,,,,:)

There are heaps of variables to what landing technique you use, three pointers are a bit slower over the fence so you can use a lot less runway , wheelers are needed in some airplanes ,like my Skyfox as the tail looses a bit of authority as low airspeeds. A three pointer isn't actually a "full stall" either but rather the wing doesn't have the airspeed to give enough lift to fly, the same as a tricycle gear isn't actually stalled when you flair, take note of the attitude in the air when you fully stall the wings ,it is much higher AoA than in the landing sequence. I personally do three pointers a bit more at the moment as the Super Decathlon is quite comfy in them, my Skyfox (a kitfox copy) does wheelers a lot better,,,the RV6 I was flying is happy doing both and the c185 is happy with either aswell , I don't have a huge amount of taildragger time so I'm sure you'll get heaps of good replies, this is my 2 cent worth
cheers Mat
 
Jaybird,
Wheel landings are usually used for crosswind conditions or if you are flying a tailwheel aircraft w/ poor forward visibility - eg a Cessna 195 - they can take up more runway so the 3 point "full stall" landing is often used for short fields and if the pilot simply prefers that kind of landing.
There are some tailwheel pilots/instructors that will probably chime in after awhile.
J
 
Wheel landings do offer some advantages in crosswinds - to a point. Some technique is aircraft specific. For instance, one airplane might be more dangerous to wheel land, because if it has less rudder authority, it might actually be prone to groundloop during the transition phase from a wheel landing to the three-point attitude.

You'll almost always get your shortest landing, and your best soft-field performance from a 3-point landing. It'll be your shortest, because you're landing at your minimum possible forward airspeed (just above a full stall). It'll be the best for a soft field, because if you accidentally hit a rut, or a mud puddle, you'll be less likely to flip the plane.

Wheel landings are generally "prettier," but I tend towards thinking that my 3-point landings are more important from a pilot skill point of view.

Oh, and why on earth did you title the thread that way? Wheel landings and 3-point landings are CONVENTIONAL landings. (ie. not for those that need training wheels ;)). Tailwheel landing gear is conventional landing gear.

Ryan
 
Last edited:
I prefer wheel landings for the crosswind, more often than not the winds are 30-45-60-90 degrees off runway heading and 15G25. Many times it's right main and then it's a toss up as to whether the other main or tail wheel comes down next. The Pawnee has lots of rudder.

3 point landings offer the slowest landing speeds, when there is not much headwind and you want to reduce turn time to get the next glider airborne, you don't want to spend time taxing back. Get it down, get I stopped and be ready to go.

Pawnee has a flat deck, parallel to the ground in the 3point attitude. No nose cowling to get in the way.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Tailwheel airplanes-

I was reading an article and from I gather, there are 2 types of landings one can make in a tailwheel airplane, Wheel and Full Stall.

Why would a pilot choose one over the other? Which is preferred and why?



And why does PoA flag my spelling of tailwheel?:wink2:
Click to expand...

It really depends upon What aircraft, what the field condition, weather and the pilots ability.

I landed my 170 both ways my favorite at OKH was a full stall full flaps, with the yoke at full rear position, the 170 would do really nice wheel landings but on the narrow runway I liked to be as slow as possible.

With the Fairchild I do both also, but it feeds safer to do the full stall, but here is a wheel landing at BVS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOhuH8X4Wm0
 
Last edited:
-------NITPICK ALERT------

"Full stall" is a common term to describe the three point landing attitude but it's confusing. You really don' want to stall -- you simply want to place the airplane on the ground at the slowest possible speed.

When I did my TW transition training I was hung up on "full stall" So we dropped in a few times and nearly put the tailwheel through the rudder.

:(

Then I read Harvey Plourde's book and asked my transition instructor about the whole "Stall" notion.

"Well, we really don't want to stall it..."

So it's not really a "stall" landing. It's a "Attitude and airspeed which results in slowest level flight possible while maintaining control in the current conditions" landing.

:D

Take a look at a TW sitting on the ground. For most -- that attitude maintains the angle of attack required for steady, level flight at the lowest controllable airspeed.

:idea:



FWIW I've wheel landed my Chief but it's squirrelly. I prefer 3 points. On turf.
 
Some airplanes just wheel land better and some three point better and others do both equally well. In a x wind I always three point. I want the airplane all done flying when it touches down and the tailwheel on the ground for maximum steering. One thing about tailwheel airplanes is there are a LOT more cool and interesting varieties out there compared to tricycles. Don
 
yakdriver said:
Some airplanes just wheel land better and some three point better and others do both equally well. In a x wind I always three point. I want the airplane all done flying when it touches down and the tailwheel on the ground for maximum steering. One thing about tailwheel airplanes is there are a LOT more cool and interesting varieties out there compared to tricycles. Don
Click to expand...

+1. I disagree with the often-repeated generalized statement that wheel landings are better in crosswinds. It all depends on the airplane and pilot. I never do wheel landings in the Pitts, for various reasons, and do not avoid crosswinds. Once in a while I'll do a wheelie in the Cub for the helluvit, but have 3-pointed it in about direct 25KT.

It can be argued that wheelies can have an advantage if you're truly in sufficient wind to exceed the airplane's ability to cancel crab/drift at 3-point attitude. Most crosswind landings do not involve this much wind. But at this point you may be approaching the limits of the airplane, and may need brake to get the tail down without weathervaning.

Not yet mentioned is that wheel landings may have the best advantage in gusty headwind conditions where you might get deposited rather abruptly, or ballooned back in the air at low speed after you're rolling out while attempting a 3-pointer. But to me, this is more of a 'style point' issue than one involving important practical or safety considerations.

I also think there's a purist aesthetic to the 3-pointer. Minimum speed, minimum ground roll. I feel it's more challenging to do a perfect 3-pointer than a perfect wheelie, since the wheelie does not require precise control of attitude and airspeed at the point of touchdown. So I find them that much more satisfying to really nail a great one.
 
Last edited:
It has been said that anyone doing wheel landings is just showing off.


speed equates to damage when the aircraft blows a tire or some other bad thing happens.
 
Tom-D said:
It has been said that anyone doing wheel landings is just showing off.
Click to expand...

Mostly they are showing off their fear of slowing the plane down and subjecting themselves to embarrassing hippity-hops. :stirpot:

Tom-D said:
speed equates to damage when the aircraft blows a tire or some other bad thing happens.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
i haven't flown a taildragger in a while but i always preferred 3 pointers. in the Super Cub i would occasionally do a wheel landing for proficiency though. I never figured out how the wheel landing crosswind guys managed to slow the plane down enough to get the tailwheel down on the ground without getting just as slow and with just as little control authority as I did when doing a 3 point.

And I also can't help but notice that when I watch the videos of the hotshots in Alaska landing on a sandbar, they don't do 3 pointers.
 
dmccormack said:
So it's not really a "stall" landing. It's a "Attitude and airspeed which results in slowest level flight possible while maintaining control in the current conditions" landing.



Take a look at a TW sitting on the ground. For most -- that attitude maintains the angle of attack required for steady, level flight at the lowest controllable airspeed.





FWIW I've wheel landed my Chief but it's squirrelly. I prefer 3 points. On turf.
Click to expand...

The stall angle of a Citabria's wing is the usual 17° or so. On the ground in the three-point attitude it's well short of that at around 13 degrees. Most taildraggers are the same. What most guys get when the thing falls the last two feet in the three-point attitude is just sink developing as the airplane slows, not a stall. In a stall the nose drops.

The old oleo-gear Champ is also squirrely in the wheel landings. Those oleos let it get porpoising; they're too soft and have lots of travel. Really got to set it down gently if you're to succeed, and got to lift that tail abruptly, too, or it's liable to fly away again.

I prefer wheel landings most of the time, especially in a crosswind. One thing at a time: Touch the upwind main, hold the aileron into the wind and tail up to kill lift, let the downwind wheel touch, and then lower the tail to the runway as the rudder loses authority.

A really short landing is best done with a tail-low wheel landing (tailwheel just off the surface), then the tail is raised way up to reduce AoA and lift, and brakes are applied and the elevator is modulated to keep the airplane from going over. I was trained to land the 185 like that and have stopped it in far less than POH distances. Once in a while I do it in my Jodel, too, but the really light tail on that thing makes one careful.

Dan
 
tonycondon said:
And I also can't help but notice that when I watch the videos of the hotshots in Alaska landing on a sandbar, they don't do 3 pointers.
Click to expand...

That's because many of those bushwheel tires are too big to actually acheive a 3-pt attitude. Shortest landings come from landing as slow as possible near stall attitude (whether this technically puts 3 tires on the ground or not) and then pushing over onto the wheels for max braking. The winners of the STOL contests consistenly do this.
 
I agree with those who said that to some extent it depends on the airplane whether 3 point or wheel landings are easier in crosswinds. In some airplanes the rudder becomes noticeably ineffective with the tail on the ground and the engine idling and in those airplanes a wheel landing offers much greater control until the tail is lowered and that can happen at a speed well below what occurs at a 3 point touchdown. But other than that the primary advantage of a wheel landing is the ability to see ahead of the airplane, something that can be rather important on occasion. I believe that to some extent the "common knowledge" that crosswind landings are easier with wheel landings is due to the fact that directional control is enhanced when you can see where you're pointed directly.

I would dispute the notion that wheel landings are necessarily faster and/or take more runway than 3 point landings although it does appear to require more skill to make wheel landings as short as possible. Yes the airspeed required to hold the plane in the air is slightly lower in the three point attitude but since the lift vs AoA is fairly flat for most airplanes near the critical angle the difference in touchdown speed can be almost nothing. It is true that many pilots use a higher over the fence speed for a wheel landing but that's more because they can than because they have to.
 
If I ever get around to wheel landings I'll let you know which I prefer. As a total TW rookie, I have only done three pointers to this point. Even in the beginning while I was trying to get the hang of those darn rudder pedals, I could three point and roll out my Cessna 140 in less than 2,000 feet.

There is a lot to be said for coming in slow and planting all three wheels on the runway at the same time. My old school instructor doesn't seem to be interested in teaching me wheel landings until I am extremely proficient with the three pointer.

The other side of this argument from my instructor is the guys from the Cessna 120/140 club that tell me they usually do only wheel landings.

BTW, I have landed quite a few times in 6 to 8 knot crosswinds and having the wheel on the ground seems to be the ticket for that situation, at least in my airplane. The only other taildragger I've flown was a Champ and that was my first 6 hours a long time ago, so I don't remember alot, but I do remember that I did nothing but three pointers.

Doc
 
gismo said:
I believe that to some extent the "common knowledge" that crosswind landings are easier with wheel landings is due to the fact that directional control is enhanced when you can see where you're pointed directly.
Click to expand...

What's this forward visibility stuff you talk about? :) I don't think forward vis generally helps directional control any....as long as you've learned to adapt to the visual cues and use peripheral vision properly. It's a requirement of any antique-classic type biplane pilot. I think the only exception to this is if you're landing on a wide grass strip with no edge markers. Then it's easy to start drifting without picking up on it, unless you can see straight ahead.

gismo said:
I would dispute the notion that wheel landings are necessarily faster and/or take more runway than 3 point landings although it does appear to require more skill to make wheel landings as short as possible.
Click to expand...

You can wheel land at any speed from approach to almost 3-point, but most light airplanes in a normal wheel landing attitude are traveling at least 5 mph faster than they would be in 3-point attitude. It's about 5 mph in the Cub, and a 5 mph increase in touchdown speed means you're landing with 13% more speed over the 3-pointer, which would increase the landing roll by 25%. All things being equal, the 3-pointer can ony result in a shorter landing roll. If you apply max braking at touchdown during a wheel landing, you will still roll further than if you applied max braking after touching down 3-point and immediately pushing it onto the mains, as many bush pilots do. Now if you remain in 3-point attitude during rollout, your diminished braking ability would probably lose to the wheel landing if you're attempting max braking with the shortest possible rollout.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Wheel landings do offer some advantages in crosswinds - to a point. Some technique is aircraft specific. For instance, one airplane might be more dangerous to wheel land, because if it has less rudder authority, it might actually be prone to groundloop during the transition phase from a wheel landing to the three-point attitude.

You'll almost always get your shortest landing, and your best soft-field performance from a 3-point landing. It'll be your shortest, because you're landing at your minimum possible forward airspeed (just above a full stall). It'll be the best for a soft field, because if you accidentally hit a rut, or a mud puddle, you'll be less likely to flip the plane.
Click to expand...
Almost always shortest. Unless you are a bit "hot" then the shortest landing is to put the mains down (wheel landing) and get on the brakes. If you have good brakes, they slow you down a lot faster than floating down the runway.

Tailwheels are a lot easier to land than nosewheels because you don't have to worry as much about touchdown speed being a little fast and/or float - if you are a little hot just do a wheelie.

(It's after the landing that the noswheel is easier.)

Back in the olden days, I did wheel landings about 95% of the time in a Cessna 120. For some reason, I am in the habit of doing three point (or is it three bounce?) landings in my LSA.

Wheel landings in a crosswind are nice if you have good toe brakes to steer with. If you have the typical mechanical heel brakes, then that is another story.

Some pilots perfer one or the other, some airplanes prefer one or the other. It works out best when the pilot and airplane agree.
 
With my limited tailwheel experience, I can't say yet which is better for me, but I know more than one experienced hand- including the guy who checked me out for my tailwheel add-on, who'd been giving lessons in that very plane for over 40 years- who say "I don't care how hard it's blowing, or from what quarter, I'll always do a three-pointer." I'm sure there are equally savvy old birds who'd disagree, but I haven't heard from them yet. :D
As stated earlier, a 3-pointer is not necessarily a full-stall landing. You can put most light taildraggers down on all 3 wheels at a fairly wide range of speeds.

I'm inclined, so far, to lean towards the 3-pointer camp, and here's my logic:

OK, so maybe keeping the rudder high longer will give you more yaw control longer, before you've committed the tailwheel to the surface. But there will still come that moment when the tail must come down, and you will find yourself, at that moment, in precisely the same situation as the guy trying a 3-pointer. So why put it off? The tail wheel, if steerable, will give you much better directional control than the rudder, in most cases, so it seems logical to bring it into play while you still have most of your runway remaining.

Personally- and again I will state I am a pretty green taildragger pilot- I have found that the more important thing in x-wind landings, in a Champ anyway, is to get that upwind wing down and keep it there. People have ground-looped or veered off the downwind side of the runway out of wheel landings because they failed to do this, believe me. And again, no matter which landing you do, you still have to roll out, and that's where the footwork really matters.

And you can always go around, unless you were very negligent setting up your approach. My tailwheel instructor told me he was most impressed with my willingness to go around if it didn't look like it was going well...especially if I bounced. Even a little. That is when a 3-pointer in a xwind can get really ugly; better to open the throttle and go around than to try to save such a landing.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
It has been said that anyone doing wheel landings is just showing off.


speed equates to damage when the aircraft blows a tire or some other bad thing happens.
Click to expand...

Maybe in small taildraggers, but that is simply not true in some of the bigger ones like BE-18s and DC-3s. No one three-points a DC-3.

In my 170, I like to alternate and be proficient in both. Funny thing about wheel landings in cross-winds is that most of the tailwheel instructors I know and respect will say that while they generally recommend wheel landings in strong x-winds, they will admit to using 3-points in the strongest winds they have experienced. The big advantage of the 3-point being that the tail is on the ground as soon as you touch down (you don't have to worry about losing directional control in the crucial moment that the tail stops flying).
 
A nice wheel landing can be sweeeeeet.

But where the rubber hits the road on a tough landing be it gusty or crossing winds, narrow or short runway, I'm going to three point it every time. My plane can fly awfully slow in a tail-low attitude.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
And I also can't help but notice that when I watch the videos of the hotshots in Alaska landing on a sandbar, they don't do 3 pointers.
Click to expand...

RoscoeT said:
That's because many of those bushwheel tires are too big to actually acheive a 3-pt attitude. Shortest landings come from landing as slow as possible near stall attitude (whether this technically puts 3 tires on the ground or not) and then pushing over onto the wheels for max braking. The winners of the STOL contests consistenly do this.
Click to expand...

That, and the mains with larger tires can take a lot of abuse compared with a tailwheel assembly. Don't want to plop your tailwheel down until you have to, in rough stuff.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The big advantage of the 3-point being that the tail is on the ground as soon as you touch down (you don't have to worry about losing directional control in the crucial moment that the tail stops flying).
Click to expand...

And the big disadvantage of the three-point crosswind landing is that the wings are still lifting after the airplane is on the ground. Anytime there's airflow over the wing, there's lift. Not enough to lift the airplane, but enough to lift the upwind wing if you're not still flying the thing, or enough to take weight off the mains and reduce braking. On a slippery surface it's deadly. Give me the wheel landing for decent control; the wing isn't lifting so much and I can keep the tail up until I'm almost stopped if I carry a little power for rudder authority.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
I can keep the tail up until I'm almost stopped if I carry a little power for rudder authority.
Click to expand...

What could possibly be the benefit of doing this other than for fun? I would save that stunt for fairly calm conditions.
 
Some planes wheel land easier than 3 point and vise versa. My son's Avid 3 points naturally and even strong x-winds are not an issue due to the flaperons. My plane I prefer to wheel it on unless there is no x-wind at all.

I find 3 point landings generaly result in a shorter ground roll in all cases. If I try to do a full stall three point in the Avid the tailwheel is touching when the mains are still a foot off the ground.
 
AEROBAT said:
I find 3 point landings generaly result in a shorter ground roll in all cases. If I try to do a full stall three point in the Avid the tailwheel is touching when the mains are still a foot off the ground.
Click to expand...
That's the case in virtually all the taildraggers I've flown. The stalling pitch attitude is several degrees higher than the plane sits on the ground.
 
RoscoeT said:
What could possibly be the benefit of doing this other than for fun? I would save that stunt for fairly calm conditions.
Click to expand...

Isn't flying supposed to be both fun and challenging?

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Isn't flying supposed to be both fun and challenging?

Dan
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Just making the point that there's no good practical reason to do this. You do see some folks try to keep the tail up as long as possible during wheel landings, maybe because they were taught that way and never thought anything of it. I think you're asking for trouble doing this outside of fairly calm conditions.
 
RoscoeT said:
Absolutely! Just making the point that there's no good practical reason to do this. You do see some folks try to keep the tail up as long as possible during wheel landings, maybe because they were taught that way and never thought anything of it. I think you're asking for trouble doing this outside of fairly calm conditions.
Click to expand...


The practical reason for keeping the tail up is to prevent increasing the angle of attack which might take the plane back into the air. Holding the tail up too long, however, is as you indicate, unnecessary.

Doc
 
I recommend that new Fly Baby pilots do wheel landings for the first ten hours or so. Fly Babies don't have any shock absorbers on the gear (other than the tires themselves) and I think new pilots do better with a bit of airspeed to play with.

Myself, I find that I tend to do mostly three-points, now. But then, I've got ~700 hours of Fly Baby time.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I enjoy slicking on a good one either way.

For me, it generally depends on what I'm flying, what the field is like and what the weather is doing.

Short field, I'll be 3 pointing it.
6,000' strip, I'll be wheel landing and riding it out to the last 1,000' or so.
 
As a student pilot in a J3 cub, let me tell you that landing a tailwheel is kicking my @ss! I've just about (and completely unintentionally) mastered the wheel landing, even though we are going for 3 point landings. Sunday, my landings were great. I think that is because my wife and dog were there to watch, and I didn't want to disappoint my dog. The last 2 nights, look out. I have been trouble with the flare, but last night it started to come together and my last 2-3 landings weren't awful. This is the only thing keeping me from soloing, so I'm getting a bit frustrated.
 
If there's room sounds like the solution is to take the dog with you.
 
JB1842 said:
As a student pilot in a J3 cub, let me tell you that landing a tailwheel is kicking my @ss! I've just about (and completely unintentionally) mastered the wheel landing, even though we are going for 3 point landings. Sunday, my landings were great. I think that is because my wife and dog were there to watch, and I didn't want to disappoint my dog. The last 2 nights, look out. I have been trouble with the flare, but last night it started to come together and my last 2-3 landings weren't awful. This is the only thing keeping me from soloing, so I'm getting a bit frustrated.
Click to expand...


Here's the typical TW pilot progression:


  • Landings 1-3: Whoa! We swerved!
  • Landings 4-10: OK, this isn't so h---HOLY -- whew...ok..
  • Landings 11-13: (I don't think I can do this...)
  • Landings 14-20: Ok, ok, ok -- wiggle rudder, stay straight, stay straight -- yay!!
  • Landings 20-40: Another straight one! Wow!
  • Landings 40-50: This isn't so hard...
  • Landing 51: Look at me. I'm so awes -- HOLY -- whoa!! Hang on! Whew!!!!!
  • Landings 51-2000: Keep it straight, keep it straight....
 
Todd,
Great idea! Not sure how he would like it, but since he loves to have his head out the car window going 80 down he highway, he probably would. I would need a harness to keep him from jumping out and chasing all the chipmunks on the field while taxiing, though. I told my wife that joke last night. She sure knows how to give me the evil eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top