Crosswind landing no-flap taildragger

Clip4 said:
Sure, the winds are usually lighter at the surface, except the plane is also at its slowest airspeed in the flare right where you need rudder effectiveness. That includes early in the ground roll where you need rudder to hold center line.
Click to expand...
True, but almost only wheel on in decent crosswinds.
 
Clip4 said:
Sure, the winds are usually lighter at the surface, except the plane is also at its slowest airspeed in the flare right where you need rudder effectiveness. That includes early in the ground roll where you need rudder to hold center line.
Click to expand...
So again, being able to align the slip coming down final doesn’t guarantee anything.
 
Clip4 said:
Being unable to align the slip any place coming down the final might guarantee the landing isn’t possible.
Click to expand...
Ability to align with the runway on final using a long slip tells you little about remaining control effectiveness in the flare in my opinion. For one, as several have noted, surface winds tend to be lower. Secondly, speed on final is generally going to be significantly higher than in the roundout, making it easier, not more difficult to align with the runway due to increasing control effectiveness.

Experience plays a large role in knowing the aircraft's and the pilot's limitations in crosswinds. But angling the cabin for a mile down the final in some attempt to see "can I do it" doesn't teach much IMHO. Maybe as a cross-coordination lesson for a pattern or two to get the muscle memory for what has to happen in the roundout, but after then, not so much.

YMMV. Start with lower crosswinds in any new mount or cg configuration. The latter is really important - a four seat airplane almost always flown one or two up will surprise when loaded with rear pax.
 
RyanShort1 said:
But you won’t see the windsock nearly as soon, or at all if you are backcountry.
Click to expand...
Or the windsock is not near the landing area and the winds are different.

I have seen windsocks at opposite ends of the runway point at each other.
 
Steamflyer said:
Ability to align with the runway on final using a long slip tells you little about remaining control effectiveness in the flare in my opinion. For one, as several have noted, surface winds tend to be lower. Secondly, speed on final is generally going to be significantly higher than in the roundout, making it easier, not more difficult to align with the runway due to increasing control effectiveness.

Experience plays a large role in knowing the aircraft's and the pilot's limitations in crosswinds. But angling the cabin for a mile down the final in some attempt to see "can I do it" doesn't teach much IMHO. Maybe as a cross-coordination lesson for a pattern or two to get the muscle memory for what has to happen in the roundout, but after then, not so much.
Click to expand...
Yes, surface winds can be lower, but sometimes they can be higher. I've flown at airports where the winds "tunnel" through hangar rows and can actually be stronger. To me, that's not a reason to use wing-low vs crab, it's mostly irrelevant. I don't primarily have students slip earlier because of control effectiveness, but it can inform.
Regarding your "secondly" - partially true, but it's easier to transition from keeping it straight on final, to adding in a little more pressure in one direction, than it is to do a much larger, wilder kick, to try to align the aircraft at the last minute, especially if things are gusty.
Steamflyer said:
I don't teach, am not good at it anyhow, and after 30 years, I pretty much crab down final smoking the (proverbial) Ernest Gann cigarette until it's time to round out, align, and roll on the upwind wheel. This works for tricycle and for tailwheel aircraft. The key is knowing how to use aileron and rudder (and possibly power in miserable winds) continuously to keep the nose aligned. The rest is window dressing and personal choice.
Click to expand...
You said you don't teach earlier in the thread. You are sure offering pretty strong opinions for everyone to see for that admission. Not that that's morally wrong, but it doesn't seem like you have tried your advice with multiple students. That said, where you said this:
The key is knowing how to use aileron and rudder (and possibly power in miserable winds) continuously to keep the nose aligned
Click to expand...
This is actually the reason to teach students to slip earlier on final. It provides them with a LOT more time to practice keeping the nose aligned and the aircraft on the centerline, and that helps them more than crabbing for a mile and then spending 10 seconds and 200 yards or whatever it is trying to learn how to keep the nose aligned.

My sample size on students says that it indeed is easier for a tailwheel rookie to transition from the wing low slight slip on final to the sight picture in the roundout / flare phase.

This is in the "pilot training" forum, so IMO, it's better for rookies to try the wing low. Again, once you are proficient, crab all you want.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
You said you don't teach earlier in the thread. You are sure offering pretty strong opinions for everyone to see for that admission. Not that that's morally wrong, but it doesn't seem like you have tried your advice with multiple students. That said, where you said this:
Click to expand...
Good point - most of my opinions have to do with what works for me in a variety of tailwheel aircraft often flown long distances to unfamiliar airports where the winds are often unknown and somehow always higher and with more crosswind than expected/forecast.

It is very likely that none of my opinions have any merit whatsoever in the teaching environment. However, will note in closing, that all of the techniques that work for me were established in primary training in a tricycle gear aircraft having learned in a place where the winds were high and fickle - the student direct crosswind limit for solo was 13 knots. Since the winds were often windy and variable, the crusty instructors I happened to have placed little value on a long slip on final, since it had so little bearing to what might happen in the roundout and flare. Transitioning to tailwheel from that training and environment was relatively seamless.

I would not relish teaching tailwheel ab initio and am glad there are others who do so we can keep the tailwheel aircraft flying!
 
MauleSkinner said:
So would a windsock.
Click to expand...
Sure, if your personal crosswind component limit is 10 knots, 15 is the maximum value to inflate a wind sock at most airports. Most are full around 10-12 knots. Beyond that the sock only provides direction.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Sure, if your personal crosswind component limit is 10 knots, which is what is required to inflate a wind sock at most airports. Beyond that the sock only provides direction.
Click to expand...
The majority of the airports I’ve operated from had 30-knot socks.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The majority of the airports I’ve operated from had 30-knot socks.
Click to expand...
Really? They must not have been FAA sponsored airports.

FAA standard 150/5345-27E states that a properly-functioning windsock will orient itself to a breeze of at least 3 knots (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph) and will be fully extended by a wind of 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph).

  • FAA, Size 1 - Eight feet (2.5 m) in length and 18 inches (0.45 m) throat diameter at large end
  • FAA, Size 2 - Twelve feet (3.60 m) in length and 36 inches (0.9 m) throat diameter at large end
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
The majority of the airports I’ve operated from had 30-knot socks.
Click to expand...
I generally like your posts man, but this isn't the way to make rookies better. Rookies need to learn how to fly with or without a wind sock. They should be learning these skills from the first 10 hours with ground reference maneuvers and recognizing how the winds are affecting their aircraft in relation to the ground.

Those of us who are CFI's should be promoting advanced airmanship, using tools for sure, but why let rookie tailwheel pilots sink to the lowest common denominator status?

And why does it matter? Well, for starters if you ever have a real emergency, you probably won't get a windsock to help you survive. I know my engine out back in August '23 I didn't have smoke, a flag, or a windsock to rely on, but I knew where the winds were coming from and things worked out.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I generally like your posts man, but this isn't the way to make rookies better. Rookies need to learn how to fly with or without a wind sock. They should be learning these skills from the first 10 hours with ground reference maneuvers and recognizing how the winds are affecting their aircraft in relation to the ground.

Those of us who are CFI's should be promoting advanced airmanship, using tools for sure, but why let rookie tailwheel pilots sink to the lowest common denominator status?

And why does it matter? Well, for starters if you ever have a real emergency, you probably won't get a windsock to help you survive. I know my engine out back in August '23 I didn't have smoke, a flag, or a windsock to rely on, but I knew where the winds were coming from and things worked out.
Click to expand...
Well, there ya go. I guess the underlying assumption of anything I say needs to be that pilots lack proficiency and/or are actively involved in an emergency. Probably true for the overwhelming majority of flights, I guess.
 
Steamflyer said:
Ability to align with the runway on final using a long slip tells you little about remaining control effectiveness in the flare in my opinion. For one, as several have noted, surface winds tend to be lower. Secondly, speed on final is generally going to be significantly higher than in the roundout, making it easier, not more difficult to align with the runway due to increasing control effectiveness.

Experience plays a large role in knowing the aircraft's and the pilot's limitations in crosswinds. But angling the cabin for a mile down the final in some attempt to see "can I do it" doesn't teach much IMHO. Maybe as a cross-coordination lesson for a pattern or two to get the muscle memory for what has to happen in the roundout, but after then, not so much.

YMMV. Start with lower crosswinds in any new mount or cg configuration. The latter is really important - a four seat airplane almost always flown one or two up will surprise when loaded with rear pax.
Click to expand...
Again...yep. Some tailwheel airplanes can be wheel landed with diff braking in x-winds that would cause it to be blown sideways skidding across the runway during the initial rollout on a "3-point" landing attempt in those same winds. J-3 Cub for example...assuming it's been upgraded with Groves or Clevelands. ;) For anyone who can truly land an airplane at the limits of its x-wind ability, "testing" the x-wind on final in a slip is not a thing, and doesn't cross their mind. It's just something that the pedantics argue about...those who will never come close to landing their airplane at the limits of ITS capability.
 
RoscoeT said:
For anyone who can truly land an airplane at the limits of its x-wind ability, "testing" the x-wind on final in a slip is not a thing, and doesn't cross their mind. It's just something that the pedantics argue about...those who will never come close to landing their airplane at the limits of ITS capability.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. How do you know that???
 
RoscoeT said:
Because it's useless
Click to expand...
That's not what you said. You asserted that "no one" who can "truly" land an airplane at the limits of it's crosswinds ability would check the crosswind with a slip. You can't really say that with that much authority unless you are judging a ton of your peers without justification or actual personal observation and knowledge.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Again...yep. Some tailwheel airplanes can be wheel landed with diff braking in x-winds that would cause it to be blown sideways skidding across the runway during the initial rollout on a "3-point" landing attempt in those same winds. J-3 Cub for example...assuming it's been upgraded with Groves or Clevelands. ;) For anyone who can truly land an airplane at the limits of its x-wind ability, "testing" the x-wind on final in a slip is not a thing, and doesn't cross their mind. It's just something that the pedantics argue about...those who will never come close to landing their airplane at the limits of ITS capability.
Click to expand...
How does differential braking stop you from being blown sideways with wind high enough to be blown sideways skidding across the runway? My concern in strong winds is usually being turned upwind. Being blown sideways happens if you don't have the upwind wing down enough. But with one wheel on the runway, I don't see how differential braking works (especially since you'd need to be on the downwind brake).
 
Lindberg said:
How does differential braking stop you from being blown sideways with wind high enough to be blown sideways skidding across the runway?
Click to expand...
In a Cub you can wheel land and get the tail down with directional control with diff braking if needed in winds that would cause the airplane to get skidded sideways across the runway after attempting a "3-pointer" on one main and the tailwheel, even with full aileron into the wind. It's because the airplane still has so little load on the tires early in the "3-point" landing roll because of the remaining lift from the airspeed and AOA. You don't have enough aileron or wing clearance. You need to slow down a little before the tires can grip properly. You can get around this by wheel landing and letting the tail down at an airspeed (with both mains rolling) where the tires will grip in the 3-point attitude. The trick is not waiting too late to the point where you can't get the tail down without losing directional control. Again, diff braking can help. We are talking about the limit of the airplane's x-wind potential here. Plenty of people never mess with area of the envelope. "Testing" the x-wind on final is academic and not useful for determining when you're really at the limit.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
"Testing" the x-wind on final is academic and not useful for determining when you're really at the limit.
Click to expand...
Yes, this.

Diff braking can help keep the airplane aligned with the runway in high crosswinds. As noted, it's near the edge of the envelope and no guarantees that you'll be able to get the tail down gracefully even if you can keep it aligned in such conditions. In a twin, the equivalent is differential thrust.
 
RoscoeT said:
In a Cub you can wheel land and get the tail down with directional control with diff braking if needed in winds that would cause the airplane to get skidded sideways across the runway after attempting a "3-pointer" on one main and the tailwheel, even with full aileron into the wind. It's because the airplane still has so little load on the tires early in the "3-point" landing roll because of the remaining lift from the airspeed and AOA. You don't have enough aileron or wing clearance. You need to slow down a little before the tires can grip properly. You can get around this by wheel landing and letting the tail down at an airspeed (with both mains rolling) where the tires will grip in the 3-point attitude. The trick is not waiting too late to the point where you can't get the tail down without losing directional control. Again, diff braking can help. We are talking about the limit of the airplane's x-wind potential here. Plenty of people never mess with area of the envelope.
Click to expand...
Ok, so I agree that this can be done - in SOME planes. I wouldn't try it in others. Shorter coupled planes can depart on you very quickly. A Piper Vagabond, for instance, is NOT like a Cub. Neither would I try that in a plane with a lot of vertical surface and less rudder effectiveness and grabby brakes. Cubs are relatively tame and you can get yourself in a bind in other tailwheel aircraft.
RoscoeT said:
"Testing" the x-wind on final is academic and not useful for determining when you're really at the limit.
Click to expand...
It's not so much academic as it is knowing your aircraft, and knowing that not all aircraft are Cubs. For instance, you might be able to land in a crosswind in a Cub (I think I've done this in Kerrville) where your wing is so low that it's 2 feet off the runway on touchdown. In a low wing taildragger, that might scrape the wing on the runway. There are aircraft that if the required bank was too high, I would absolutely go around, and that's not merely "academic."
 
Cubs and their ilk land so slow that by starting on the downwind edge of a wide runway you can (maybe) have it stopped before getting to the upwind side. Taxiing it back to the hangar may be more of a challenge... Have had to get wing walkers once in the past (in a 170) after landing.

Once you get to bigger and heavier tailwheel aircraft, some of the techniques discussed in this thread may come into play - think 170/108/Maule/180/185/Waco/Stearman/Staggerwing/BE18/Widgeon/Goose. Each of these have different physical and pilot capability crosswind limits.

A very seasoned bush pilot once suggested that as far as he could tell, most ground loops occurred in the opposite direction to the initial swerve - i.e., overcorrection.
 
Steamflyer said:
Cubs and their ilk land so slow that by starting on the downwind edge of a wide runway you can (maybe) have it stopped before getting to the upwind side. Taxiing it back to the hangar may be more of a challenge... Have had to get wing walkers once in the past (in a 170) after landing.

Once you get to bigger and heavier tailwheel aircraft, some of the techniques discussed in this thread may come into play - think 170/108/Maule/180/185/Waco/Stearman/Staggerwing/BE18/Widgeon/Goose. Each of these have different physical and pilot capability crosswind limits.

A very seasoned bush pilot once suggested that as far as he could tell, most ground loops occurred in the opposite direction to the initial swerve - i.e., overcorrection.
Click to expand...
All true!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top