3 Point v. "Full Stall" Landings

[dmccormack]

On the Aeronca listserv we're discussing 3 point v. "full stall" landings.

I've noticed that the Chief is still flying at 38 MPH indicated when I touch down 3 point (with me on board stall buffet happens around 40 with full break below 40 MPH).

Early in my tailwheel transition training I was confused by the "full stall" description and my expereinced Chief/Champ instructor cautioned me about tail first touchdowns (after looking over the Maule tailwheel and where it's mounted I heartily agree with him that it's hard on the airplane and could cause structural damage).

Thus there is no way to "full stall" the Chief without a very nose high attitude that will cause the tailwheel to strike first, will reduce overall control effectiveness, and may even induce a ground loop (should one wing drop before the other).

Thoughts?

 

[wabower]

Carrying a wee tad of power through the flare allows more precise tail control in my Cessna 180.

On the Aeronca listserv we're discussing 3 point v. "full stall" landings.

I've noticed that the Chief is still flying at 38 MPH indicated when I touch down 3 point (with me on board stall buffet happens around 40 with full break below 40 MPH).

Early in my tailwheel transition training I was confused by the "full stall" description and my expereinced Chief/Champ instructor cautioned me about tail first touchdowns (after looking over the Maule tailwheel and where it's mounted I heartily agree with him that it's hard on the airplane and could cause structural damage).

Thus there is no way to "full stall" the Chief without a very nose high attitude that will cause the tailwheel to strike first, will reduce overall control effectiveness, and may even induce a ground loop (should one wing drop before the other).

Thoughts?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Depends somewhat on the aircraft, but "full stall" often results in a tailwheel first touchdown. Three point is typically preferred as I under stand it.

I believe that Maul recommends the tailwheel first landing - If memory serves me correctly, it's called the "double whomp" landing technique.

 

[dmccormack]

Depends somewhat on the aircraft, but "full stall" often results in a tailwheel first touchdown. Three point is typically preferred as I under stand it.

I believe that Maul recommends the tailwheel first landing - If memory serves me correctly, it's called the "double whomp" landing technique.

Perhaps Maule airplanes, but the Maule tailwheel is a STC replacement for many former taildraggers (skids).

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Perhaps Maule airplanes, but the Maule tailwheel is a STC replacement for many former taildraggers (skids).

Sorry, yes I meant Maule airplanes as flown by Mr. Maule - not the tailwheel mounted on something else not intended for hard core bush flying.

 

[dmccormack]

Sorry, yes I meant Maule airplanes as flown by Mr. Maule - not the tailwheel mounted on something else not intended for hard core bush flying.

About as close to "Bush flying" as I'll get in my Chief is the Maule tailwheel rolling through grass.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

About as close to "Bush flying" as I'll get in my Chief is the Maule tailwheel rolling through grass.

Awwww, come-on... Have some fun. Fly it to someplace like the Hudson Bay, or Alaska, or...

 

[dmccormack]

Awwww, come-on... Have some fun. Fly it to someplace like the Hudson Bay, or Alaska, or...

Does Potsdam, NY count?

How about Shinnston, WV?

 

[Dr. O]

In my T-Craft (BC-12D, I miss that bird) on a calm day I would normally drag the tail wheel for a second before the mains would settle - no double whomp, just rumbles... Never had any structural problems...
On a more windy day I would three point...
If the day was blustery, then I would wheel land and carry a trickle of power as the tail came down, so that I had rudder authority...
There is no right or wrong way - it is what you are comfortable with...

denny-o

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Does Potsdam, NY count?

How about Shinnston, WV?

Do they look like this?

 

[dmccormack]

Pretty much:

 

[Dan Thomas]

On the Aeronca listserv we're discussing 3 point v. "full stall" landings.

I've noticed that the Chief is still flying at 38 MPH indicated when I touch down 3 point (with me on board stall buffet happens around 40 with full break below 40 MPH).

Early in my tailwheel transition training I was confused by the "full stall" description and my expereinced Chief/Champ instructor cautioned me about tail first touchdowns (after looking over the Maule tailwheel and where it's mounted I heartily agree with him that it's hard on the airplane and could cause structural damage).

Thus there is no way to "full stall" the Chief without a very nose high attitude that will cause the tailwheel to strike first, will reduce overall control effectiveness, and may even induce a ground loop (should one wing drop before the other).

Thoughts?

What many think are full-stall three-point landings are nowhere near the stall, and they don't have to be. The airplane won't bounce off a well-done three-pointer like it will off a wheel landing, and tailwheel-first usually is no big deal. If the Maule tailwheel can't take it, it should be replaced with a Scott. We had Maules on a couple of Champs and they were no problem other that their tendency to shimmy. They're rather cheap and crude. The Champ and its younger cousins have much more trouble with the tailwheel leaf springs; they're too easily deformed. We're forever replacing them as they straighten out and tilt the steering axis forward so that shimmy starts.

Dan

 

[dmccormack]

What many think are full-stall three-point landings are nowhere near the stall, and they don't have to be. The airplane won't bounce off a well-done three-pointer like it will off a wheel landing, and tailwheel-first usually is no big deal. If the Maule tailwheel can't take it, it should be replaced with a Scott. We had Maules on a couple of Champs and they were no problem other that their tendency to shimmy. They're rather cheap and crude. The Champ and its younger cousins have much more trouble with the tailwheel leaf springs; they're too easily deformed. We're forever replacing them as they straighten out and tilt the steering axis forward so that shimmy starts.

Dan

Interesting -- I haven't noticed any shimmy yet, though the actual wheel isn't perfectly round (rumbles when taxiing on pavement).

I've noticed the best landings are a simultaneous touchdown. Tail first seems to drive the mains down a bit. 3 point at 38 MPH is plenty slow, yet there's still sufficient aerodynamic force to provide rudder and even elevator authority.

 

[jesse]

The Piper Super Cruiser I used to fly would hit tailwheel first in a full stall condition. The owner of the aircraft told me that was fine and he preferred it be landed that way - so I always did.

 

[brcase]

Interesting -- I haven't noticed any shimmy yet, though the actual wheel isn't perfectly round (rumbles when taxiing on pavement).

I've noticed the best landings are a simultaneous touchdown. Tail first seems to drive the mains down a bit. 3 point at 38 MPH is plenty slow, yet there's still sufficient aerodynamic force to provide rudder and even elevator authority.

I would think that is the best and prefered method for the Chief, I certainly think it is in the Champ. I only have a few hours in chief, but I spent the majority of my 1st 300 hrs instructing in the back of a Champ.

Our Scout actually likes the Mains just slightly 1st.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[rottydaddy]

I've noticed that the Chief is still flying at 38 MPH indicated when I touch down 3 point (with me on board stall buffet happens around 40 with full break below 40 MPH).

I don't see what the big deal is- a lightweight taildragger is pretty much "still flying" until you tie it down.

For what my (inexperienced) opinion's worth, I don't think, in light of that, that it's worth putting the tail down first, regularly, with a 50+- yr-old airframe just to be sure it's stalled when the mains hit.

If stopping the roll ASAP is the main priority- say, in an emergency- then I'd agree that it might be best to "spike" the tail first.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't see what the big deal is- a lightweight taildragger is pretty much "still flying" until you tie it down.

For what my (inexperienced) opinion's worth, I don't think, in light of that, that it's worth putting the tail down first, regularly, with a 50+- yr-old airframe just to be sure it's stalled when the mains hit.

I bring it up because I hear lots of tailwheel folks using "Full stall" and "Three point" synonymously.

They're not, and can cause confusion and more than a few hard landings.

 

[stingray]

Unless I'm practicing for something specific on the Tcraft I just bring it in two point and let the tail drop on it's own. You have way more control you can, see so much better, there isn't really any reason to come in so slow unless you do not have much room. It is a little different than doing a real two point where you push the stick forward to keep the tail up. Like someone else said you do what you are most comfortable with.

Dan

 

[Dan Thomas]

I don't see what the big deal is- a lightweight taildragger is pretty much "still flying" until you tie it down.

For what my (inexperienced) opinion's worth, I don't think, in light of that, that it's worth putting the tail down first, regularly, with a 50+- yr-old airframe just to be sure it's stalled when the mains hit.

If stopping the roll ASAP is the main priority- say, in an emergency- then I'd agree that it might be best to "spike" the tail first.

Even if we get it to the full-stall angle and the tailwheel hits first, the AoA will drop to less than stall angle as soon as the mains drop. So we really haven't gained much.

Landing tailwheel first is probably easier on it than having the mains hit first and then the tail slams down harder as the CG comes into play. It's the jackrabbiting that flattens that tailspring. Such porpoising is caused by the mains landing first, the CG yanking the tail down which increases the AoA and the airplane both bounces and flies off again. The pilot tends to shove the stick forward (instead of re-establishing the three-point attitude) and the mains hit hard again. More bouncing. It can get carried away in a hurry.

I prefer wheel landings. Keeps one much sharper. I find that the bounce is much less likely if I roll the airplane just a hair, immediately before touchdown, so that one wheel strikes ahead of the other; the CG's downward momentum is dissipated partly though rolling the airplane level again.

Through practice, short rollouts are best achieved though wheel landings, with the brakes applied with the tail high to kill lift and get the best traction. The landing itself is done with the tail not far off so that airspeed is near minimum, but the tail is immediately raised and brakes applied, with the elevator used to prevent noseover.

Dan

 

[rottydaddy]

I bring it up because I hear lots of tailwheel folks using "Full stall" and "Three point" synonymously.

They're not, and can cause confusion and more than a few hard landings.

OK, I get that... in fact, I'd always assumed, when flying a Champ, especially with two aboard, that in a good 3-pointer (nice and slow, with minimum rollout) it was fully stalled (can't recall, offhand, what the typical IAS was on touchdown or during the "break" when practicing power-off stalls in flight, but it was very close). I guess it's stalled enough, if you land it right...

I've never landed one tail-first, but I have done a couple of "tail low wheel landings" while trying to make a smooth 3-pointer, and the difference in momentum is very noticeable. I get the point about dropping the tail down, but even when wheeling it on it is not hard to avoid that.

I was taught to not worry about any of that as much as just putting it on as slowed-up as is practical, and Champs, at least, tend to "want" to 3-point when you arrive in that fashion.

 

[N1347B]

I bring it up because I hear lots of tailwheel folks using "Full stall" and "Three point" synonymously.

They're not, and can cause confusion and more than a few hard landings.

Historically, a good three-point was a full stall landing. However, like any other tailwheel pilot, I don't always fully stall in a three-point. I have landed tailwheel first, but the leaf springs on Luscombes are a weak link in the landing system.

As to tailwheels, Henry and I have put over 3000 hours on Maule tailwheels on two airplanes, and we have never experienced a shimmy. Most folks just don't understand that a tailwheel, any tailwheel, needs proper installation and regular maintenance.

Henry can full stall his 8A on the mains. I can't.

Deb

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Through practice, short rollouts are best achieved though wheel landings, with the brakes applied with the tail high to kill lift and get the best traction.

If you come to a full stop with the tail still up, it comes down with a BANG! I only tried that once and decided it was not a good idea.

 

[dmccormack]

OK, I get that... in fact, I'd always assumed, when flying a Champ, especially with two aboard, that in a good 3-pointer (nice and slow, with minimum rollout) it was fully stalled (can't recall, offhand, what the typical IAS was on touchdown or during the "break" when practicing power-off stalls in flight, but it was very close). I guess it's stalled enough, if you land it right...

I've never landed one tail-first, but I have done a couple of "tail low wheel landings" while trying to make a smooth 3-pointer, and the difference in momentum is very noticeable. I get the point about dropping the tail down, but even when wheeling it on it is not hard to avoid that.

I was taught to not worry about any of that as much as just putting it on as slowed-up as is practical, and Champs, at least, tend to "want" to 3-point when you arrive in that fashion.

Right -- get it on speed on short final and keep it there until you're about 5' AGL. Then gradually increase angle of attack. The airplane slows, descends, hold it off -- rumble, rumble -- all three wheels down.

If it actually stalled, what happens when a wing drops? Worse, when the stall breaks the mains drop onto the ground, the resultant change in AoA when the wheels bounce?

But if you check the AoA on the Champ or Chief while in the 3 point position, you'll see it's around 13 degrees or so. That NACA wing stalls about 16-17.

 

[dmccormack]

Historically, a good three-point was a full stall landing. However, like any other tailwheel pilot, I don't always fully stall in a three-point. I have landed tailwheel first, but the leaf springs on Luscombes are a weak link in the landing system.

As to tailwheels, Henry and I have put over 3000 hours on Maule tailwheels on two airplanes, and we have never experienced a shimmy. Most folks just don't understand that a tailwheel, any tailwheel, needs proper installation and regular maintenance.

Henry can full stall his 8A on the mains. I can't.

Deb

Deb -- What's the AoA of your Luscombe when its sitting on the ground?

I learned the hard way I can't actualy stall the Chief. I tried --the nose was up, the tailwheel struck, the airplane pivots, and then the mains hit.

 

[N1347B]

Right -- get it on speed on short final and keep it there until you're about 5' AGL. Then gradually increase angle of attack. The airplane slows, descends, hold it off -- rumble, rumble -- all three wheels down.

If it actually stalled, what happens when a wing drops?

You land . The idea is to stall about five inches above the ground. I can hold my Luscombe off and do that. If there is an issue, I push the stick forward a tad and get a little airspeed to help control my descent.

I try to fully stall in all my landings except when there is a good bit of strong crosswind or turbulence. Doesn't always happen, but it works well in my airplane when I do.

That said, not all airplanes fly and react the same. CG, weight, power etc... can determine what type landing is best in your airplane.

For example, you don't pull my stick to the gut until the wheels touch the ground. Do it in the air and you will "fall out" or stall sooner than expected.

If you are interested, I recommend you take your Chief up and do some leaf stalls. These stalls mimic the full stall landing, and then you will know what to do "if a wing drops". I did lots and lots of these when I first bought Lester so I could get the feel of him in the full stall landing configuration. Do lots of slow flight as well.

Deb

 

[jesse]

But if you check the AoA on the Champ or Chief while in the 3 point position, you'll see it's around 13 degrees or so. That NACA wing stalls about 16-17.

Hmm...

You can reach that critical angle of attack in any attitude. I am really confused as to how a CFI would think that they can't stall unless they are in a certain attitude. Landing attitude != AoA.

Time for you to go read: http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Rudder-E.../dp/0070362408http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Rudder-Explanation-Art-Flying/dp/0070362408

 

[dmccormack]

If you are interested, I recommend you take your Chief up and do some leaf stalls. These stalls mimic the full stall landing, and then you will know what to do "if a wing drops". I did lots and lots of these when I first bought Lester so I could get the feel of him in the full stall landing configuration. Do lots of slow flight as well.

Deb

I have done lots of slow flight getting a feel for this end of the envelope -- it's downright crawling with a very benign break (big wing, light weight -- it's a kite).

You have to be uncoordinated to get a wing drop, so I haven't had a surprise yet.

I'll try leaf stalls next time, but I don't think I can "full stall" this airplane and be in a 3 pt attitude.

 

[dmccormack]

Hmm...

You can reach that critical angle of attack in any attitude. I am really confused as to how a CFI would think that they can't stall unless they are in a certain attitude. Landing attitude != AoA.

Time for you to go read: http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Rudder-Explanation-Art-Flying/dp/0070362408

Think about it -- the speed is a given (I mentioned it earlier -- 38 MPH), the airplane is at a landing attitude (3 pt) and the AoA at that point (level flight, 1" off the ground) is approximately 13 degrees to the relative wind.

Increase the AoA suddenly to 17 degrees and what happens? Airflow is spoiled and wing stalls.

A stall is a disruption of the airflow, which is normally caused by exceeding a design parameter.

And I've read S&R annually for 9 years.

 

[N1347B]

I have done lots of slow flight getting a feel for this end of the envelope -- it's downright crawling with a very benign break (big wing, light weight -- it's a kite).

You have to be uncoordinated to get a wing drop, so I haven't had a surprise yet.

I'll try leaf stalls next time, but I don't think I can "full stall" this airplane and be in a 3 pt attitude.

That is possible. Then it's wheel landings for you!

Henry's 8A prefers the wheel landing.

Mine prefers the three-point.

Your airplane may prefer the non stalled three point or maybe a tailwheel low wheel landing.

If you get it on the ground and back to the hangar without mishap, I wouldn't worry about it.

BTW, where would I find my AOA?

Deb

 

[jesse]

Think about it -- the speed is a given (I mentioned it earlier -- 38 MPH), the airplane is at a landing attitude (3 pt) and the AoA at that point (level flight, 1" off the ground) is approximately 13 degrees to the relative wind.

Increase the AoA suddenly to 17 degrees and what happens? Airflow is spoiled and wing stalls.

*Lots* of different factors are going to change that speed. You can approach that speed or angle of attack in multiple attitudes. You do not need to be in a particular attitude to exceed the critical angle of attack during the landing.

 

[N1347B]

Think about it -- the speed is a given (I mentioned it earlier -- 38 MPH), the airplane is at a landing attitude (3 pt) and the AoA at that point (level flight, 1" off the ground) is approximately 13 degrees to the relative wind.

Increase the AoA suddenly to 17 degrees and what happens? Airflow is spoiled and wing stalls.

A stall is a disruption of the airflow, which is normally caused by exceeding a design parameter.

And I've read S&R annually for 9 years.

You may want to check the incidence of your horizontal stabilizer and the range of your elevator.

Deb

 

[dmccormack]

That is possible. Then it's wheel landings for you!

Henry's 8A prefers the wheel landing.

Mine prefers the three-point.

Your airplane may prefer the non stalled three point or maybe a tailwheel low wheel landing.

If you get it on the ground and back to the hangar without mishap, I wouldn't worry about it.

BTW, where would I find my AOA?

Deb

I brought it up because it causes unnecessary confusion, IMHO.

A stall at altitude has a definate break -- the wing quits flying.

Ideally that happens precisely at the same moment the wheels kiss the surface.

But that assumes a perfect alignment of weight, CG, airspeed, and attitude that seems impossible to repeat with certainity.

So I prefer to say a 3 point landing occurs when all three wheels touch the ground simultaneously at the lowest possible airspeed.

Theis "lowest possible airspeed" is a function of control -- I suppose I could achieve an airspeed of 25 MPH but the throttle would be wide open and the nose pointed up at some ridiculous angle.

So 36-38ish gives me a level touchdown, a slow landing speed, and no bounce.

But I can't say that it was a "full stall." Cause it didn't.

 

[dmccormack]

You may want to check the incidence of your horizontal stabilizer and the range of your elevator.

Deb

Travel is within tolerance, but it may be a function of the tailwheel -- the Maule sticks down further than the OEM Aeronca Skid installed in 1940.

 

[dmccormack]

*Lots* of different factors are going to change that speed. You can approach that speed or angle of attack in multiple attitudes. You do not need to be in a particular attitude to exceed the critical angle of attack during the landing.

Fuel load, air temps, and what I'm wearing. So far all my landing slow flight practice/tests have been solo, and temps between 25 to 65 F.

Keep in mind the speed is indicated -- so density is factored out.

Plus, it's what it's indicating in that configuration -- no idea how accurate that pitot is in that regime.

 

[jesse]

Fuel load, air temps, and what I'm wearing. So far all my landing slow flight practice/tests have been solo, and temps between 25 to 65 F.

Keep in mind the speed is indicated -- so density is factored out.

Plus, it's what it's indicating in that configuration -- no idea how accurate that pitot is in that regime.

What I'm trying to get at - is that I wouldn't be worrying about your airspeed while you're in the flare in a taildragger. Take the airspeed in consideration before the flare? Sure. But not once you're in it.

If you find that you're having to use a steeper attitude then you'd prefer to reach a particular AoA you just need to slow it down a bit more. You can either do that by being slower in the first place or simply being more patient as you bleed off the speed.

What you wrote above reads as if there is a solid relationship between AoA, attitude, and airspeed. There isn't. You'd need to throw a LOT more variables in there to establish any relationship and none of that can be instantly calculated during the flare. It's all about feel.

Your indication above that your airplane can't be stalled in the flare because of some non-existent relationship between the AoA and attitude suggests a poor understanding of AoA. Figuring out the AoA of an airplane by simply looking at it and eye-balling it would be incredibly difficult.

 

[N1347B]

It's all about feel.

He's thinking too hard.

Plus, I bet he's trying to keep the runway in sight. He's gonna have to just go IFR for that last moment or two and admire his lovely cowl and panel.

Plus, stop looking at your airspeed. There's no need to look on short final. Your butt will tell you all you need to know.

Let your butt do the flying and the landing.

The rest of you is just along for the ride

(and the scenery).

Deb

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

He's gonna have to just go IFR for that last moment or two and admire his lovely cowl and panel.

Like this?

(No. My brother does not let me touch the controls on the ground. And that is fine by me. I'm WAY too rusty. )

 

[Greg Bockelman]

IIRC, seeing over the nose in a three point attitude isn't difficult in a Champ. If it is anything at ALL like a Chief. I could see over the nose in my Chief.

 

[N1347B]

Like this?


(No. My brother does not let me touch the controls on the ground. And that is fine by me. I'm WAY too rusty. )

Yep. That is a beautiful airplane!

Deb

 

[N1347B]

IIRC, seeing over the nose in a three point attitude isn't difficult in a Champ. If it is anything at ALL like a Chief. I could see over the nose in my Chief.

Bet ya can't see over the nose of that C-195!

I can see over the nose of my Luscombe most times, but I have custom seats that are way over stuffed. I can't see over the nose of Henry's 8A. He has skinny seat bottoms.

Dan's problem may be his airplane. It may not like a full stall landing. But it can also be a pilot problem. Good three points need good depth perception. There was a time when I had a problem with my landings. There was a little bounce to every one of them. I couldn't understand why, until I had my next physical. I needed glasses, rather badly. Fixed that problem right up.

I don't like to suggest to someone that they may be getting old, but hey, these things happen .

Deb