3 Point v. "Full Stall" Landings

[Greg Bockelman]

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

No, but I can see AROUND it just fine. I can see the center line about 50 feet in front of the nose. Surprised the hell out of me when I first got in it because I thought it would be totally blind.

 

[dmccormack]

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

Are you kidding? I made the mistake of centerlining a 150' runway -- never again! I offset so I can line up the centerline to spot drift off the side window.

I don't look at airspeed once I'm established on short final. I have glanced to try and see what's happening as I level off and touch down. Sorta a science project.


Again, my point is only that describing a 3 point landing is not necessarily synonymous with full stall landing.

Imprecise language causes problems.

 

[dmccormack]

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.

Nah -- landings -- once I figured out the rolling-gently-along-on-three-wheels is a "3 point landing" (and did not require a stall) -- are gentle greasers in the Chief as they are in trikes.

I can tell you the last time I had a firm landing, and that was a year ago.

 

[dmccormack]

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.

AoA is not Marvel Mystery Oil - it's a relationship of a specific wing design to the relative wind.

If the relationship interferes with the movement of air rather than disturbing it in a controlled manner, the wing ceases to create lift -- on all or part of the planform.

We can predict that the typical taildragger sitting in a 3 point attitude will take off at a certain speed with a certain load in a no-wind condition.

Why?

Because the wings are bolted on at (angle of incidence), and the airplane is sitting at a particular angle on the ground, the two add up to a specific angle which may produce lift as it rolls down a runway.

If the wings were mounted perpendicular to the runway, we'd all predict the airplane would not fly, no matter how fast it rolled down the runway.

Thus is reasonable to assume that if our typical taildragger takes off from a 3 point attitude at 39 MPH on a given day, an immediate landing in the same conditions would result in a touchdown 3 point attitude at around 39 MPH.

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses, Perhaps I'm the only one that's been confused by the "full stall landing" term. Then again, "Flare" messed me up for a bit too -- so I just use "level off" in teaching and only use flare if the student wants to.

 

[twdeckard]

Before we spiral into a debate about Bernoulli versus Coanda what do you think about wheel landing the Champ as a crosswind strategy?

I have very little experience in one but it felt like we had more elevator than rudder and that if you weren't careful you could have the tail up in the air and a pedal near against the stops.

Perhaps not advice not to wheel land, but rather not to coast along saying "wow, that one worked great" only to get squirrly at the end?

Todd

 

[Dan Thomas]

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.

Better to set it down while still rolling slowly, or add some power so it doesn't drop hard. You're right, it's not good to let it bang down hard.

Dan

 

[jesse]

AoA is not Marvel Mystery Oil - it's a relationship of a specific wing design to the relative wind.

Never said it was. But you were trying to determine AoA based on variables that don't determine AoA. You were also implying that those variables controlled the AoA when they simply aren't the only factors.

If the relationship interferes with the movement of air rather than disturbing it in a controlled manner, the wing ceases to create lift -- on all or part of the planform.

It doesn't cease to create lift. It ceases to produce adequate lift and it does so in a rather rapid fashion.

We can predict that the typical taildragger sitting in a 3 point attitude will take off at a certain speed with a certain load in a no-wind condition.

Why?

Because the wings are bolted on at (angle of incidence), and the airplane is sitting at a particular angle on the ground, the two add up to a specific angle which may produce lift as it rolls down a runway.

Sure. Of course there are other variables but you could get reasonably close.

Thus is reasonable to assume that if our typical taildragger takes off from a 3 point attitude at 39 MPH on a given day, an immediate landing in the same conditions would result in a touchdown 3 point attitude at around 39 MPH.

This is where you get it wrong. First off, that 39 mph was enough lift to DEPART the runway. When you touch down you shouldn't have takeoff levels of lift. You'll want LESS lift else the slightest bump will bounce you.

You're also landing with power off instead of power on - which is also a factor to consider.

I can take your tail dragger and reach the critical angle of attack at speeds *above* and *below* 39 mph.

You can reach that critical angle of attack in ANY attitude during the landing. You keep trying to draw a relationship between attitude and AoA which is simply a bad idea.

If you try to get too technical you'll miss out on the obvious part which is how it feels. Trying to use your airspeed indicator down to mph accuracy during your flare simply is not how you should land. It won't work in gusty conditions, it won't work with different weights, different quantities of fuel, etc. etc.

 

[Geico266]

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.

Exactly the way I was taught in a 1941 Interstate Cadet. My instructor wanted the tail wheel to touch 1/2 second before the mains. That was a fun plane to fly.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

AoA is not Marvel Mystery Oil

Yea, angle of attack actually works...

Before we spiral into a debate about Bernoulli versus Coanda what do you think about wheel landing the Champ as a crosswind strategy?

I have very little experience in one but it felt like we had more elevator than rudder and that if you weren't careful you could have the tail up in the air and a pedal near against the stops.

Perhaps not advice not to wheel land, but rather not to coast along saying "wow, that one worked great" only to get squirrly at the end?

Todd

I liked to do wheelies in the Cessna 120 because you weren't floating around at low speed trying to stay lined up. But, I had very nice Cleveland toe brakes so I didn't have to worry about running out of rudder once I planted the mains. With the "traditional" mechanical heel brakes you have much more potential for an awkward moment before you set the tail down...

 

[N1347B]

Are you kidding? I made the mistake of centerlining a 150' runway -- never again! I offset so I can line up the centerline to spot drift off the side window.

I don't look at airspeed once I'm established on short final. I have glanced to try and see what's happening as I level off and touch down. Sorta a science project.


Again, my point is only that describing a 3 point landing is not necessarily synonymous with full stall landing.

Imprecise language causes problems.

We're just jerking your chain cause it's so much fun!

I think if you let me borrow your Chief for a while, I could come back and teach you how to land it...

Have you named it yet? That may be your problem. Old airplanes have a soul, and if you don't treat them right, they get even.

Ask me how I know...

Seriously, don't worry about it. You haven't groundlooped, so it's no big deal if your three-points are not full stalls.

Deb

 

[N1347B]

Yea, angle of attack actually works...



But, I had very nice Cleveland toe brakes so I didn't have to worry about running out of rudder once I planted the mains. With the "traditional" mechanical heel brakes you have much more potential for an awkward moment before you set the tail down...

Toe brakes are for sissies.

Deb

 

[dmccormack]

Before we spiral into a debate about Bernoulli versus Coanda what do you think about wheel landing the Champ as a crosswind strategy?

I have very little experience in one but it felt like we had more elevator than rudder and that if you weren't careful you could have the tail up in the air and a pedal near against the stops.

Perhaps not advice not to wheel land, but rather not to coast along saying "wow, that one worked great" only to get squirrly at the end?

Todd

Wheelies vs 3 point..wow....

Those against wheelies say you have to land twice.

Those against 3 pointers say you have no control authority.

I think it's an option, depending on your proficiency and the airplane. The problem is, few pilots are accurate self-assessors.

 

[dmccormack]

We're just jerking your chain cause it's so much fun!

I think if you let me borrow your Chief for a while, I could come back and teach you how to land it...

Have you named it yet? That may be your problem. Old airplanes have a soul, and if you don't treat them right, they get even.

Ask me how I know...

Seriously, don't worry about it. You haven't groundlooped, so it's no big deal if your three-points are not full stalls.

Deb

You sure you can afford the fuel bill? After all, we're talking 3.5 - 4 gph!!

This airplane defies naming -- it's the old grumpy guy that just glares until you finally show some respect, then says, "oh well, I'll put up with you -- for now."

No worries here -- just friendly inquiry.

 

[dmccormack]

Toe brakes are for sissies.

Deb

Brakes? I don't use no steenkin brakes..I have Goodyears.

 

[N1347B]

Grumpy

There ya go!

Deb

 

[dmccormack]

There ya go!

Deb

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Toe brakes are for sissies.

Deb

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Wheelies vs 3 point..wow....

Those against wheelies say you have to land twice.

Those against 3 pointers say you have no control authority.

I think it's an option, depending on your proficiency and the airplane. The problem is, few pilots are accurate self-assessors.

My only thing about wheel landings in high crosswind situations is that you still have to get the tail on the ground, whereas if you three point it, it is already on the ground. Yeah, you can get the mains on the ground in a higher crosswind with a wheel landing, but if you aren't real careful, you can lose it getting the tail on the ground, especially with a right crosswind.

 

[wabower]

And especially--especially if your airplane has been rumored for about 70 years to have a tad less than optimal vertical tail? I agree with your assessment, BTW. The west-TX wind 180 guys just want whatever happens to happen at as low and airspeed as possible, although I have sat in the right seat and watched Richard Pulley wheel-land his 195 on days I was content to let somebody else do the flying..

My only thing about wheel landings in high crosswind situations is that you still have to get the tail on the ground, whereas if you three point it, it is already on the ground. Yeah, you can get the mains on the ground in a higher crosswind with a wheel landing, but if you aren't real careful, you can lose it getting the tail on the ground, especially with a right crosswind.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Again, my point is only that describing a 3 point landing is not necessarily synonymous with full stall landing.

Imprecise language causes problems.

Getting in a little late, but here's my take...

There are definitely two different landing types here, although in many taildraggers the difference is so slight as to be negligible.

There used to be a negligible difference in my Maule, but since I added VG's, I can roll the tailwheel on the ground with the mains more than a foot off. Makes for an "impact" in a full-stall landing that I don't like.

Years ago we had a Spezio tuholer that was worse yet...we actually ended up with some cracks in the main gear, probably due to plopping full-stall landings with a stiff gear.

Obviously there's a difference in your Chief, but I wouldn't worry about doing damage since you've got that nice oleo gear...I surely won't admit to knowing what that gear will soak up.

Technique can make a fair amount of difference as well...if your "minimum sink rate at touchdown" is due to a long, low approach, a few seconds of float, or a touch of power, you're going to have a higher deck angle at stall than you will if the "minimum sink rate at touchdown" is the bottom of an arc that's tangent to the ground (imagine doing a loop where the wheels just touch the ground at the bottom). I do this with my Maule coming in over the trees on my strip...in excess of 1000 fpm descent, arrested while reaching full up-elevator just as all three wheels kiss the ground (assuming I've been practicing ). This is pretty extreme, but it might give you a better picture of what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that if you adjust your technique slightly, you can "make" a negligible difference between full-stall and three-point.

Fly safe!

David

 

[dmccormack]

Technique can make a fair amount of difference as well...if your "minimum sink rate at touchdown" is due to a long, low approach, a few seconds of float, or a touch of power, you're going to have a higher deck angle at stall than you will if the "minimum sink rate at touchdown" is the bottom of an arc that's tangent to the ground (imagine doing a loop where the wheels just touch the ground at the bottom). I do this with my Maule coming in over the trees on my strip...in excess of 1000 fpm descent, arrested while reaching full up-elevator just as all three wheels kiss the ground (assuming I've been practicing ). This is pretty extreme, but it might give you a better picture of what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that if you adjust your technique slightly, you can "make" a negligible difference between full-stall and three-point.

Fly safe!

David

Power to idle 500' AGL or so the descent rate is significant (RPM, Oil temp/pressure, Altimeter, airspeed, and turn coordinator is all I got, so can't give you a number).

Until I got used to the sight, it was downright spectacular -- high drag airplane with slow forward speed makes the ground come up quick!

The level-off happens between 10 and 5' AGL (Depending on how sharp I am that day). Then its held off until the whoosh is replaced with a rumble.

I'm bleeding off nearly all airspeed before I touchdown in that high AoA configuration. But the only way it will stall is if I hold the mains up and the tail strikes first. It's rather artificial and I don't see the benefit.

 

[gismo]

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.

Actually, once you've leveled off at 1g, AoA is very closely related to pitch attitude. And in ground effect the effective AoA is lowered slightly (or the stall AoA is raised depending on how you look at it) due to the ground's restriction of the wingtip vorticies and that makes it even less possible to achieve a stall unless you pitch up beyond the 3pt attitude. IME most often when a taildragger is landed in the 3pt attitude no actual stall occurs, instead the lift available in that landing attitude drops below the weight of the plane and it settles to the ground. If a full stall actually occurred, the nose would drop noticably and the mains would hit first. That said I do believe it's possible to perform a "full stall" landing in any taildragger but this would require arriving at a point just far enough above the surface with exactly enough vertical energy that the result of the stall would be for the nose to drop to the 3pt attitude at the instant the wheels touch. Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover might be able to pull this off consistently but I suspect us mere mortal pilots would require a lot of luck.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Power to idle 500' AGL or so the descent rate is significant (RPM, Oil temp/pressure, Altimeter, airspeed, and turn coordinator is all I got, so can't give you a number).

Until I got used to the sight, it was downright spectacular -- high drag airplane with slow forward speed makes the ground come up quick!

The level-off happens between 10 and 5' AGL (Depending on how sharp I am that day). Then its held off until the whoosh is replaced with a rumble.

Works for me.

 

[dmccormack]

Actually, once you've leveled off at 1g, AoA is very closely related to pitch attitude. And in ground effect the effective AoA is lowered slightly (or the stall AoA is raised depending on how you look at it) due to the ground's restriction of the wingtip vorticies.

Exactly -- you could increase the load factor with an abrupt roundout, I suppose.

 

[jesse]

Actually, once you've leveled off at 1g, AoA is very closely related to pitch attitude. And in ground effect the effective AoA is lowered slightly (or the stall AoA is raised depending on how you look at it) due to the ground's restriction of the wingtip vorticies.

The key thing is that you cannot determine AoA based on pitch, nor can you determine pitch based on AoA. I start to cringe whenever someone starts to do that, especially a CFI, because it will confuse people.

I agree that pitch and AoA can be similar during certain flight envelopes. I do not think one should be comparing them to each other. There are a *lot* of other factors that will determine your touch down attitude - I was trying to address the statement of:

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.

Exactly -- you could increase the load factor with an abrupt roundout, I suppose.

There is more to it then simply drawing a line between AoA and attitude during the last phase of the landing. Increasing thrust can permit a higher attitude, while maintaining or lowering the angle of attack.

Changes in the CG will most certainly change the behavior - which can be the result of burning fuel, taking on a passenger, etc.

Gusting winds or **** rolling off a building creates a very dynamic situation with more variables then you can throw at an HP-48. What I'm trying to get at, is if you're trying to compare your takeoff airspeed to your flare airspeed, if you're trying to figure out landing attitude by comparing what you think the stall AoA and what you think the natural attitude is, you're looking in the wrong areas to improve your landings.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The level-off happens between 10 and 5' AGL (Depending on how sharp I am that day). Then its held off until the whoosh is replaced with a rumble.

I'm bleeding off nearly all airspeed before I touchdown in that high AoA configuration. But the only way it will stall is if I hold the mains up and the tail strikes first. It's rather artificial and I don't see the benefit.

Sounds like you're getting the "few seconds of float" that results in the higher deck angle, even after the steep descent.

For the most part, there's really no benefit of full-stall over three point in your Chief. In some airplanes, there's enough spring left in the tailwheel assembly that you can put yourself back into the air by pulling the stick into your lap after landing. The Spezio I mentioned was like that. Never been able to do it with my Maule, and I've never seen indications of it in a Champ or Chief.

 

[dmccormack]

The key thing is that you cannot determine AoA based on pitch, nor can you determine pitch based on AoA. I start to cringe whenever someone starts to do that, especially a CFI, because it will confuse people.

I agree that pitch and AoA can be similar during certain flight envelopes. I do not think one should be comparing them to each other. There are a *lot* of other factors that will determine your touch down attitude - I was trying to address the statement of:



There is more to it then simply drawing a line between AoA and attitude during the last phase of the landing. Increasing thrust can permit a higher attitude, while maintaining or lowering the angle of attack.

Changes in the CG will most certainly change the behavior - which can be the result of burning fuel, taking on a passenger, etc.

Gusting winds or **** rolling off a building creates a very dynamic situation with more variables then you can throw at an HP-48. What I'm trying to get at, is if you're trying to compare your takeoff airspeed to your flare airspeed, if you're trying to figure out landing attitude by comparing what you think the stall AoA and what you think the natural attitude is, you're looking in the wrong areas to improve your landings.

Hang on... you cannot be saying there is no relationship between airplane attitude and AoA -- or are you??

 

[jesse]

Hang on... you cannot be saying there is no relationship between airplane attitude and AoA -- or are you??

You cannot take an airplanes attitude and determine the AoA. Nor can you take the AoA and determine an airplane's attitude.

You can on the other hand determine an airplane's AoA without attitude data. You can determine attitude without AoA data.

I'm not sure what relationship you think exists between attitude and AoA. Yes, if you change pitch, it is possible that your AoA will be influenced. But that isn't because they are mapped together in any way. You can also increase your pitch and decrease your AoA. Or you can increase your pitch by 360 degrees and barely change your AoA.

AoA != Attitude

Perhaps you might think that since a change in one could possibly change the other there is a relationship there. I do not. Neither one of them provides data for determining the other.

 

[gismo]

Exactly -- you could increase the load factor with an abrupt roundout, I suppose.

That's true but the load factor will go back to one if you reach a near constant altitude before touching down. And if you get an accelerated stall in the flare when pitched to match the 3pt attitude you will likely become airborne again after ground contact if there's any springiness in the gear because your airspeed at stall will be sufficient to generate more lift than the plane weighs once the vertical speed is removed from the equation. In some planes it might work out that the airplane decelerates enough between the stall and touchdown that there's not enough lift to push the plane back into the air though.

One thing that's important to understand is that the lift vs AoA curve for most wings doesn't fall off very steeply just beyond the critical AoA. The "bottom falling out" feeling you experience with an airborne stall is due to the fact that the AoA increases rapidly once the stall begins due to the downward movement of the wings. But if something (i.e. ground contact) prevents the wing from dropping the available lift remains much higher after a stall than it would if the plane could descend.

 

[dmccormack]

You cannot take an airplanes attitude and determine the AoA. Nor can you take the AoA and determine an airplane's attitude.

You can on the other hand determine an airplane's AoA without attitude data. You can determine attitude without AoA data.

I'm not sure what relationship you think exists between attitude and AoA. Yes, if you change pitch, it is possible that your AoA will be influenced. But that isn't because they are mapped together in any way. You can also increase your pitch and decrease your AoA. Or you can increase your pitch by 360 degrees and barely change your AoA.

AoA != Attitude

Perhaps you might think that since a change in one could possibly change the other there is a relationship there. I do not. Neither one of them provides data for determining the other.

Certainly you can't within a percentage or angle in flight, since for most GA airplanes there's enough washout to vary to built-in angle all along the wing. But you can during design -- which is why aerodynamic engineers build wings and predict performance within a certain set of conditions.

But to say there is no relationship between attitude, direction of flight, and AoA -- and that the pilot cannot sense or know when AoA is reaching some critical angle -- is simply overstating the case.

 

[gismo]

Hang on... you cannot be saying there is no relationship between airplane attitude and AoA -- or are you??

Dynamically the two are closely related in a transient manner, but that's due to the airplane's momentum. IOW when you first pitch up from level flight, the AoA rises with the pitch attitude, but shortly after the AoA starts to drop off from the peak and eventually settles in at something higher than you started with but with less increase than the increase in pitch attitude.

 

[dmccormack]

Dynamically the two are closely related in a transient manner, but that's due to the airplane's momentum. IOW when you first pitch up from level flight, the AoA rises with the pitch attitude, but shortly after the AoA starts to drop off from the peak and eventually settles in at something higher than you started with but with less increase than the increase in pitch attitude.

Absolutely -- it's a dynamic environment, certainly.

But with enough data points, an analysis could show how the wing is interacting with the relative wind.

 

[gismo]

Certainly you can't within a percentage or angle, since for most GA airplanes there's enough washout to vary to built-in angle all along the wing.

I'm not seeing what "washout" has to do with the relationship between AoA and pitch attitude other than making the "true" AoA a bit vague.

But to say there is no relationship between attitude, direction of flight, and AoA -- and that the pilot cannot sense or know when AoA is reaching some critical angle -- is simply overstating the case.

I'm not getting your point here either. Those three (attitude, flight vector, and AoA) are in a fixed relationship but the flight vector is about as difficult to determine visually as the AoA. If you're real good at math and have an accurate indication of vertical speed and airspeed you could compute the flight vector but I know I can't do that unless the vertical speed is zero.

 

[jesse]

But to say there is no relationship between attitude, direction of flight, and AoA -- and that the pilot cannot sense or know when AoA is reaching some critical angle -- is simply overstating the case.

A pilot can sense AoA if they have an understanding of it. There is no relationship between an airplane's attitude and the AoA. An attitude can change some things, depending on some other things, which may change the AoA.

An airplane's attitude is 40 degrees nose up? What is the AoA?
An airplane's AoA is 9 degrees. What is the attitude?

Now you might say you need more data. Yes, you do, but you do NOT need attitude data to determine AoA and you do not need AoA to determine attitude.

 

[dmccormack]

A pilot can sense AoA if they have an understanding of it. There is no relationship between an airplane's attitude and the AoA. An attitude can change some things, depending on some other things, which may change the AoA.

An airplane's attitude is 40 degrees nose up? What is the AoA?
An airplane's AoA is 9 degrees. What is the attitude?

Now you might say you need more data. Yes, you do, but you do NOT need attitude data to determine AoA and you do not need AoA to determine attitude.

We weren't talking about acro flight regimes -- the topic is the landing attitude just prior to touchdown in a tailwheel airplane.

 

[Dan Thomas]

We weren't talking about acro flight regimes -- the topic is the landing attitude just prior to touchdown in a tailwheel airplane.

Exactly. We've flared the airplane a few inches above the surface and it's travelling parallel to the runway in three-point attitude, maybe descending at an angle of no more than one degree, or one foot in sixty. If the chord line in three-point attitude is at 13 degrees, and the descent is one degree, the AOA can be safely assumed to be around 14 degrees for our purposes. It has to do with the direction of the relative wind, and in this case it's very close to parallel with the runway. If we're floating level it IS parallel to the runway. Stall speed can be lower here not only because of the surface's interference with vortex formation, but the upflow normally seen immediately ahead of an airfoil is reduced.

If we're in a three-point attitude at 100 feet altitude on approach, descending steeply at about five degrees, we're about to die. On the other hand we might have the nose up at 25 degrees in the climb and be safe because we're climbing at a 15-degree angle.

There are guys who kill themselves because they take off, hold the airplane close to the runway and accelerate, then pull back hard to zoom upward because they think they're "safely above stall speed." They can pass through the stall AoA real quick doing this and have the thing crash before they know what's happening. It gets worse if they turn while pulling back, or the "yank-and-bank" scenario. They have been drilled on stall speed instead of AoA, and maybe didn't make the connection between load factor and stall speed increase. They might confuse AOA with angle of incidence, too, using deck angle as AoA.

Dan

 

[dmccormack]

There are guys who kill themselves because they take off, hold the airplane close to the runway and accelerate, then pull back hard to zoom upward because they think they're "safely above stall speed." They can pass through the stall AoA real quick doing this and have the thing crash before they know what's happening. It gets worse if they turn while pulling back, or the "yank-and-bank" scenario. They have been drilled on stall speed instead of AoA, and maybe didn't make the connection between load factor and stall speed increase. They might confuse AOA with angle of incidence, too, using deck angle as AoA.

Dan

Exactly.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Exactly.

That is kinda sorta what Jesse has been trying to say.

 

[dmccormack]

That is kinda sorta what Jesse has been trying to say.

Even this CFI can deal with conditional statements.

I don't do so well with "Don't say that! Someone might get confused!"

 

[rottydaddy]

Before we spiral into a debate about Bernoulli versus Coanda what do you think about wheel landing the Champ as a crosswind strategy?

I have very little experience in one but it felt like we had more elevator than rudder and that if you weren't careful you could have the tail up in the air and a pedal near against the stops.

Perhaps not advice not to wheel land, but rather not to coast along saying "wow, that one worked great" only to get squirrly at the end?

Todd

I was able to try both types of landings in respectable crosswinds in a Champ, and didn't see any clear advantage to the wheel landing... the most important thing, as with any nosedragger I've flown, is to keep that upwind wing down as needed to correct drift.
As for weathervaning on the rollout, well, whether you wheel it or 3-point it,there's still a moment when the rudder isn't biting much air, yet the tailwheel isn't biting much runway. You're just plain vulnerable in a x-wind at that moment, so you have to stay ahead of the airplane.

The guy who taught me to fly taildraggers (and in the process taught me a great deal about landings in general) told me in his half-century flying these types he still prefers to try a 3-pointer first, regardless of conditions. If he runs out of rudder, he might try tapping a brake a little. And of all the traits I brought with me to my lessons, he seemed to be most pleased with my inherent willingness to go around.


I agree 100% about not coasting along... in strong or gusty winds, you can't relax until it's tied down.