Flying Tail Draggers

[TheBeeKeeper]

Just a quick note to ask if of you legendary tail dragger pilots out there ever went through a phase early on, of taking the easy option and doing a 'wheeler' instead of landing on '3 points'?

I sometimes find myself convincing myself that the wind is stronger than it really is, thereby justifying the wheelers!

I know that I just need to get some solo time in doing circuits making every one of the landings 3 pointers, to get rid of those bouncy demons!

I think I seem to have a lack of confidence on just how slowly I can approach.

Any comments, suggestions?

BK

[Evo]

I'm certainly not a "legendary tail dragger pilot", more a numpty in a taildragger, but I regard myself as taking the easy option... and doing three-pointers.

Maybe it's the aeroplane, but the one I fly seems to three-pointer naturally while wheelers tend to bounce. So when it comes to trying, well, i've been shown how, but... :O

[pbloore]

I'd tend to second that. I've always aimed for three pointers unless there is a strong crosswind because of the tendancy to bounce and also vere off as the tail comes down!.

I use the gliding technique which is to attempt to keep the aircraft flying just above the ground, when you finally run out of rear stick (or yoke) movement it settles nicely on the ground. I use the same technique with trikes - it's less nasty on the nose wheel.

The only really big difference is that with a tailwheel aircraft you can't relax until you're completely stationary and more anticipation is required. When I was having problems with the landing roll a rew years ago a CFI said to me to keep pedalling and 'confuse the b******d'. Curiously this seems to work although I don't necessarily recommend it.

[stevencr]

I may be old, but not an old taildrager. I was taught by my instructer to always wheel her on. I own and operate a Kitfox series 3. VH-BJF, When possible, i try and use the grass strip at my local club. The tarmac main strip tends to get the wheels biting and requires a lot more tap dancing to keep her on the straight and narrow.
Sure she does the occasional hop skip and a jump, but with practice, most of the time she settles down 1st time, just have to pin the stick foreword.

Ps, Took me 8hrs to solo, spent many occasions vanishing between the trees off the runway.
www.sabc.org.au (Our Club)

[BeauMan]

I only completed my course about a month ago, and so far have only ever been advised to three point it. Partly because Clacton's grass is only 600 metres (I'm used to 2000 at Cambridge ;) ) and if you land it a little bit too long you need to get the tail down sharpish and stop the thing. :eek:

[TheBeeKeeper]

Interesting responses thanks, I am flying the DH Queen Bee (practically a Tiger Moth), so I have no brakes and a skid as opposed to a tailwheel.

When doing wheelers I was tought to fly the last 20 feet on the power, keeping the same wheel up attitude, and as soon as the wheels touch the ground I chop the power and check the stick forward to dump all the angle of attack on the wing, thereby dumping the lift. And I have to say it works a treat, never bounces and remains glued to the ground albeit with an embarrasingly long ground roll for a Moth!

3 pointers on the other hand, I seem to just fly a little too fast on the approach, and as pbloore stated, do the gliding thing and fly in formation with the ground, but if I let the aeroplane touchdown with anything more than just a few knots above the stall, I get two or more landings in my logbook for the one circuit! :oh:

Practice Practice Practice

BK

[BeauMan]

Probably a silly question, but as I'm new to taildraggers... By giving forward pressure, aren't you a bit concerned about a possible propstrike? Or is Henlow's grass runway smooth enough for that not to be an issue?

[LowNSlow]

BeeKeeper you just hit the nail on the head: for a three pointer you should be stalling onto the ground (hopefully from a few inches up rather than a few feet) below you rather than forcing her on when she's still flying. If you did that in an Auster (or a Cub for that matter) you'd be pogoing down the runway like a goodun.

[Lowtimer]

Beekeeper,

What a lovely aeroplane you have use of, I have the hope to see it in person some time.

Speaking from Tiger Moth experience, if you're getting two landings for the price of one when attempting a three-pointer, I suspect you're touching down mainwheels slightly first, i.e. in slightly too flat an attitude. The CG being behind the mainwheels, the descending aeroplane has its nose pushed up by the mainwheel contact, increases its angle of attack and flies off again briefly. If you hold off just a little bit longer she will settle down on all three points at once, and if you are nice and low in the hold-off the contact will be satisfylingly gentle, too. You don't say what taildraggers you've been flying hitherto - but the Tiger does have a very high deck angle, the nose is a lot higher in the three-point attitude than in, say, a Cub.

Having said that I don't have a great deal of time on the Tiger and sometimes if I have lots of room, e.g. at Sywell, I'll wheel it on gently at a lowish speed.

Steve - Loads of room under the rotating prop on a Cub, Moth or Chippie. A Griffon Spitfire, Su-26 or a Pitts is another matter, and with them you really do have to keep the prop clearance in mind. (Someone, please check me out on your Griffon Spit and I'll remember the prop, honest I will!) Next time you see a Cub or Moth, stand alongside at a fair distance and hold up a straight edge to sight between the bottom of the prop arc and the main wheels. That will show you just how high the tail has to be for a prop strike on those types - it's really high.

[TheBeeKeeper]

I guess it comes back to practice and getting used to 'the picture' that you strive for at the stall. I guess I am still apprehensive about stalling that little bit too high?!? Being the last flying example in the world..... I would get heckled if I bent it!

BeauMan, I am only checking forward to be in similar attitude to take off roll. Literally an inch maybe two forward on the stick is enough to glue the aeroplane firmly over all but the roughest bumps. And with a Moth there is plenty of prop clearance.

BK

[Mark 1]

A wheeler will always use more runway than a 3-point landing.
Some flight manuals actually advocate slightly tailwheel first, but that always ends up with a pretty firm arrival.

I find a 3-point easiest on most light aircraft. The spring in Cessna steel undercarriages makes them prone to bounce with a wheeler but Tigers have a bit more damping in the system, it keeps the view ahead alive a bit longer aswell.

I recall an interview with Delmar Benjamin after he had flown the GB replica, where he said that he got aileron reversal in the 3-point attitude and ended up scraping a wing tip. It was wheeler (at 120mph) every time after that.

[BeauMan]

Beekeeper / Lowtimer, thanks for the explanations guys. It all makes sense now... :)

[FlyingForFun]

Nothing to add to the explainations of the different landings that have already been given.

As for which type of landing to do: as has been said already, if there is a strong gusty cross-wind, only a wheeler will get you down safely. If the field is very short, only a 3-pointer will get you down safely. If neither of these is a factor, you can pretty much choose whichever you want. If you're taking the girl next door to some exotic place for lunch, then I'd go for whichever you're better at and least likely to bounce off of - far more likely to impress! If you're by yourself, I'd go for whichever you're least good at, because you want to get good at it so that when the time comes that you need to use it you are good at at!

FFF
---------------

[MLS-12D]

Personally I've not had problems with bounces doing wheelers, but like pbloore I am afraid of the swerve as the tail comes down (and God help you if you rush things and pull back on the stick before the tail is through flying! :ouch: ).

I know that the above phobia is a symptom of poor pilot technique, and I intend to get some special instruction. Left to my own devices, I would always three-point, but as FFF suggests, sometimes that is not an option.

[DubTrub]

Mark1, you are correct...the aircraft is now in Kermit Weeks' place in Polk City, Fla (well worth a visit , by the way, if the hurricanes have left it be this year) and still has the tip scrape there.

[jabberwok]

I went through the same phase but only on the Chipmunk. I was happy to three point the Tiger all the time but I was slightly wary of the Chipmunk after I stalled it about two feet up during a three pointer. After that I wheeled it on for a few weeks until an instructor realised what was going on. An hour with him got my confidence back..

[IFHP]

At the end of the day I think it all comes down to practice and the type A/C your flying. Go back to circuit bashing, lots of landings and build up confidence. Try wheelers when YOU want to.. then you'll have the skills when you need them.
If memory serves ( I willing to be shot down on this ) the BoB lanc had these problems a few years back, they were try to 3 point when wheelers were best ( or vice versa )

[LowNSlow]

Apparently the Air Transport Auxilliary always three pointed the heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) whereas the RAF always wheeled them on.

The Ju52/3M transport Pilot's Notes specified that the aircraft should be wheeled on as three pointing it when fully loaded would put unacceptable strain on the fuselage.

[MLS-12D]

Apparently the Air Transport Auxilliary always three pointed the heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) whereas the RAF always wheeled them on.I remember reading a book by a WW2 RAF or RCAF heavy pilot, in which he discussed his reasons for preferring one sort of landing or the other, and his colleagues' stong preference for the other. This debate has been going on for many decades. ;)

The Ju52/3M transport Pilot's Notes specified that the aircraft should be wheeled on as three pointing it when fully loaded would put unacceptable strain on the fuselage.I am certainly no authority, but I have read similar things about other transport aircraft (C-46? C-47? Can't remember).

BTW, if you like the Ju52, you owe it to yourself to beg, borrow or steal a copy of Martin Caidin's book, The Saga of Iron Annie (1979).

Partly excerpted from "You Have To Learn The Ropes"
by Milt Salamon:
The wingwalk, on Iron Annie, a 50-year-old tri-motor Junkers Ju-52, set a world record on Nov. 14, 1981.

Nineteen skydivers kneeled, crouched or stood on the wing of the German bomber-type craft that Martin Caidin owned at the time."All nineteen were outside of the airplane for at least a minute, held on by a rope," he told us.

Rope? "We tied it around the wing and the fuselage. The jumpers used it to pull themselves out of the airplane against high winds, to assume correct positions on the wing, and to keep from being blown off.

The insanity - Martin calls it "A challenge...engineering and pilot-wise and personal" - began almost a year earlier "When we were beating up the countryside with a bunch of war birds and we put in at Palatka and did some jumping there," he later told an interviewer. "The talk got around to wing walking." An idea was born.

"We approached the record slowly and carefully," Martin insisted. For almost four months, "We hunted all over for special rope and we found Pigeon Mountain Industries in Georgia with a rope that had only 2 percent stretch and an 11,000-pound test strength. On our early tests with regular nylon rope it stretched by 40 percent and we had guys hanging on for dear life all over the wing."

That Nov. 14, "We flew over Palatka, our designated drop zone. I started the final run at 9,000 feet. Soon, half a dozen guys went onto the wing to block the wind for others, he said."My first real big surprise was a sudden severe yaw of the nose to the left. I kicked right rudder hard as I could and she came around. Our speed went to 140 mph indicated and she put her nose down as that gang kept pouring out on the wing - and, just like that, she went through 2,000-, 3,000-, then 4,000-feet-a-minute rate of descent. And then the shaking went wild. . . The left wing was twisting, you could see it flexing like mad, and the right wing was drumming like a washboard, and then we got this terrific KABOOM! KABOOM! sound . . .she was trying to roll over on her back.

"There we were, coming out of the sky at nearly 200 mph and over 4,000 feet a minute. I didn't think the airplane was going to stay together . . . My head was slamming into the top of the cockpit. I almost hit the smoke switches as the signal to bail out, and I was yelling for them to get the hell off my airplane.

"I glanced at the left wing and it was twisting and rippling and then I heard crew chief Bill Tharp yelling on the radio, `They're going!' He meant the jumpers and not the wing, and as fast as they were spilling off that wing, things were smoothing out and suddenly we were back in the real world with a docile airplane, coming downstairs like a bat out of hell, but smooth.

"And we'd done it!"
This is not the way that I would treat such an old airplane; but I am far more conservative than Martin Caidin was!