AG- Tailwheel landings verses Wheelers

[Turboman]

As we have been touching ever so slightly on this issue I thought why not get it out in the open. Found this article the other day. What does everyone think?


Wheeling a taildragger is safer

As a cropping consultant, Ralph Burnett flies
his Cessna 170 about 300 hours a year, all over
the WA wheatbelt, landing in paddocks and on
roads. He has been an ag pilot and as an
instructor too, he endorses between 30 and 40
people a year on tailwheel aeroplanes.



AOPA December 1998

By Ralph Burnett, AOPA 6150.


Have you ever stood near an ag strip in the country, and been amazed at how consistently and accurately the aggie greases the aircraft on? Have you ever wondered how jungle pilots manage to operate safely from 300 to 400m strips often located on 10% Slopes?

Well, they didn't learn how to do this in the run of, the mill PPL/CPL courses. Often they had to learn on the job, a not highly recommended method

But wheeling a taildragger is really the safest and the easiest way of landing it. It’s also the most accurate, the best for crosswinds, the gentlest on the tailwheel and the best for an aborted landing. It's really a mystery why wheelers are not taught as the primary method of landing, rather than a second, (and suspect), technique.

One of the great misconceptions about wheel landings is that they must be flown faster than a three pointer. Not so; use the same speed. For example, 60kts in a Cessna 180 or 170.

Another is that the aircraft is physically pinned onto the strip by use of forward elevator. Again not so; use forward pressure only after the wheels are on and the power is coming off.

More than a few tailwheel accidents are caused by too fast approaches, followed by desperate forward control movements, a few feet above the deck.

This is how I suggest the technique be taught:

- set up an approach at 60kts and full flap;
- use some power: 1300 to 1400 rpm;
- trim only to take most weight off;
- fly to the aiming point, raise your eyes to the far end, and use a check, rather than a flare;
- as the wheels touch, relax the back pressure on the controls, and the aircraft will pivot slightly tail oil over the wheels. Then remove power;
- as a check, take your hand off the stick at the instant of the main wheels touching. The correct IAS, rate of descent and trim, will result in the tail rising slightly, and the aircraft will not need any forward elevator until power is reduced; and
- if the aircraft flares rather than flies on, then don't 'prong' it forward looking for the ground. Add a touch of power, no more back control, and the aircraft will touch down on the main wheels, but tail low. Then, apply firm forward control input.

Normal or tail high wheeler

When the aircraft pivots upwards over the main wheels, as they touch, the CG moves slightly forward, making it much easier to maintain directional control ... a real bonus! Also, the extra weight on the main wheels, then holds them on track on slippery surfaces, or in crosswinds Larger diameter tyres such as 8.00's, will further improve braking, directional stability and flotation with taildraggers.

The much improved visibility from the wheel landing is a plus in maintaining direction, and for seeing any holes or rocks not seen on the pre-paddock inspection.

The chances of touching the propeller are minor. Just lift the tail of a C170 or 180 and see for yourself. There is at least 300mm even in very high tail positions. This may not be true of other makes: check.

Tail low wheelers

These are useful for shorter strips, where perhaps you'd drop 5 to 6kts off the over the fence speed, and fly with more trim set, so that it's easier to hold off slightly longer than for the standard wheeler, but not to the extent you would for a three pointer.

The tail low version is also it little safer if the strip is likely to be rough or soft, as there's less chance you'll sink in or even damage the gear.

Once the wheels are on the ground, it's necessary to use forward elevator quite firmly, as the power is reduced.

Crosswind wheelers

The wheeler is far superior in a crosswind, as it ensures you place the aircraft exactly where its wanted, and in an attitude where it doesn't fly again due to a gust.

Of course there is an upper limit, beyond which only the skilled or foolhardy will try to operate, and this is pretty well the manufacturer’s or flight manual maximum crosswind component.

This is how I suggest it be taught

• use usual flap, speed, and trim settings;
• at 50 to 100 ft, transit from the crabbed approach to a nose straight/slipped approach;
• add a trickle more power as you begin to slip, so that the rate of descent stays the same, and this also covers you for the extra windshear that is present in windy conditions;
• touchdown on the upwind wheel and correct the into wind swing which results;
• increase aileron input to the maximum, then allow the aircraft to settle onto both wheels and
• begin braking to slow down, but this can also include differential braking to take over from the rudder, as this becomes less effective with decaying airspeed.

Most pilots don't roll in enough aileron at touchdown - the wing really needs to be down.

A common question is: "Which direction crosswind is the easiest to handle?"

I find a right hand crosswind is easier, because I always trust the left hand brake will be better than the right hand, because it is less used on take-offs. Also, it feels less uncomfortable to go right hand than left hand, and I see this reaction from most of my students as well.

[maxspeed]

Have you ever stood near an ag strip in the country, and been amazed at how consistently and accurately the aggie greases the aircraft on?

Ralph obviously has not being a witness at one of my strips!:}

[airag3]

I agree with all he says in para' 3 re why he pefers wheelers, at least thats my excuse!

[Lowlevldevl]

When I flew Braves and Pawnees I only ever 'wheeled'.
Then I scored a job flying an 802. First real turbine seat.
As part of the endorsement I was shown the AD that stipulates full stall, 3 point landings as a requirement in that type. Apparently they are built a bit light in the tail and some have been broken in the U.S through tailwheel shimmy. Full stall, 3 pointers have the benefit of always landing with the tailwheel locked. I've had tailwheel shimmy in the 802 twice. If you ever fly into Mungindi you can still see the marks at the northern end. That happened because someone forgot to take the chock out of the locking mechanism. I realised at the start of the take-off run and aborted. The other time I thought I'd try a wheeler while the boss wasn't looking to see how they worked. I'm still amazed that the back end of the aeroplane stayed attached considering how violent that felt. They won't get the shimmy if you always land em 3 point.
Now if I always land the 802 3 point, why would I land any other Air Tractor different? No reason I can think of.
Wheeling probably is a better technique in light piston taildraggers without locking tailwheels or reversing propellers but I've never had a strip or crosswind yet that has made me think twice about doing anything different in the types I fly.
Ralph up there tells us that wheeling is better because you avoid the float that you get when you flare for a 3 pointer. Thats the reason I use beta and reverse.

[Turboman]

If its a misconception that wheelers must be flown faster than a three pointer, why are tail low wheelers

useful for shorter strips, where perhaps you'd drop 5 to 6kts off the over the fence speed,

For piston aircraft they maybe the go, but for turbines, I'm with LLD.

I must agree, however, on the high crosswind situation (to the manufacturers limit of course) and on slippery airstrips. A locked tailwheel can cause a hugh increase of adrenalin to appear in the bloodstream as you depart the centreline with full opposite rudder. Maybe you shouldn't be flying in situations like this, but I've found it much easier/safer (more control) without the tailwheel locked on the ground, restricting yaw, until you're well under control.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well I am no ag pilot but I fit 100% his description of Jungle pilot...or did when I was a bit younger....all right a lot younger!

Having gone to PNG with 300 hrs and about 20 hrs taildragging ...the preponderance of which was on Decathlons, hardly a challenging taildragger, I found myself strapped into a C185.

My checkout consisted of watching from the RHS while the CP demonstrated a dumbell circuit and landing at our 'main base' Kundiawa, Chimbu Province, Central Highlands. Bong, bong, screach...stop...change seats...me bong, bong screach stop...him "you got it!!!"

Before I continue I would like to say that this fella was to prove an EXCELLENT CP in general terms...but the C185 wasn't his forte and he mostly flew the Islander...so I became self taught from that point on as to the ways of the C185.

"Off you go and practice in the 185...stay within sight of Chimbu (one way, 1000m long, 5000' amsl, a missed approach from short finals or a big bounce very likely to hurt) and play with the aeroplane until you are comfortable...get the cargo boys to load it up for you...fly it full and empty and half loaded...when you are happy we'll put a load in and go somewhere else".

Over the next 3 or 4 days between area famil in the rhs of the Bn2 I did about 5 hrs in the C185 teaching myself to fly it...including coping with the strong quartering tailwinds (10-15 odd knots) in the afternoons. I had never wheel landed a taildragger before...ever...I had never seen a C185 up close...but god did I fall in love with that aeroplane.

I am sure you can imagine the adrenaline factor for those 5 hrs...how I didn't wreck the aeroplane is something that amazes me...more looking back 12000 hrs later than at the time...ah to be young and dumb:ok:

Of course the cargo bois thought it was just the most amazing entertainment. If literate I am sure they would have been holding up score cards...as it was all my '2s' and '3s' just illicited covered eyes and peaking out between fingers to see if I was upside down on the road off the right side or parked on the dance floor of the Chimbu disco on the left...it really was that bad until something 'clicked' after about 5 hrs....that had them jumping up and down, hooting and hollering and backslapping me with big grins...they were a great bunch of fellas.

I ended up doing LOTS of hours in old BAF and ended up, years later, buying one of my own...and I ended up teaching lots of other 300-400-500 hr pilots to fly them and 180s (couple of young mission pilots with 200 hrs each) I don't think I ever sent someone solo with less than about 30 hrs of my company in the rhs...including route/strip endorsment....no-one I trained (exclusively) ever groundlooped/crashed or died in a 185...something I take huge pride in...a few died much later in other types like Islanders. And one who I did one training trip with for another operator died in my C185 on his 4th day in PNG...his CP sent him off solo and he was dead 20 minutes later....I had warned him that it was not possible to be solo inside a month just the day before he died...interestingly he was the most 'experienced' guy I had flown with..1500 hrs of instrucing:(

The point of all this?

I have a diametrically opposed view on the value of the wheeler vs three pointer. On steep rough PNG strips wheelers are bordering on criminally dumb...although at the top of my form I did do them on days when I was feeling particularly good and in need of a little more challenge:uhoh: like I said, young and dumb.

Interesting eh...if this chap had trained me I would likely adhere to his point of view but because I learned everything I know about taildragging the hard way I don't....few of my trainees could reliably wheel land when I finally released them...both because the strips were not suitable and they all found them diffficult to grasp in the initial endorsement phase...I had taught them how but with few exceptions they all preferred 3 pointers...I should also point out that few of them had any tailwheel experience before at all...mostly I did their initial tailwheel ratings in the 185....two in the mission 180. They all continued to work on their wheelers at places like Moresby, Kiunga, Goroka and Hagen and I usually got a phone call or a cheerio on the VHF saying "Hey I can do them!!!".

After a 6 or 7 year break from Cessna taildraggers (and only a handfull of hrs in the preceeding 6 yrs) I recently flew a mates 1956 180 in the UK off grass farm strip..wonderfull fun...and I can still reliably 3 point with the stall warning chirping...just magic:ok:

Years later...my pride and joy P2-AWM (http://www.pngair.com/?q=node/325)

[jon s gull]

Just my opinion ....When conditions are favourable practice all kinds of approaches and landings .Steep shallow , with and without flap.wheeler and three point. Then when you need a different style you wont be stuck in a rut. There are so many oportunities in Ag we should never be uncurrent (not sure if thats a word) at the takeoff or landing phases.
Be aware of company policies paticularly regarding landing with a
load and use of ground idle / beta.Respect the owners rights. Some operators are now limiting the load size for landing after a bad accident this year dont believe it couldnt happen to you. This is a great site to learn from others pass it on. PS Tailwind landings just because we can doesnt always mean its always a good idea. Stand beside the guy paying the bills or the engineer sometime as your oppo squeaks his way down the runway. You may hear him counting under his breath $20 $40 $60. If there is a dirt or grass strip it may save on wear and tear also. I know this has gotten long but I once spoke to a young pilot who was having trouble with his landings turned out his brain was still back in the paddock.Seems obvious but when landing thats what should be foremost in your mind. Who was it first said '' good landing starts with agood aproach''. Just because we use abreviated circuit s doesnt excuse an unproffessional attitude. To finnish pride dictates a three pointer right in front of the flying doctor or visiting charter pilots.
feel free to add your own hints the life you save could be your mates here ends the sermon






salute'

[CRUZN]

RE: Airtractor, Three point landing in gusty conditions would create all sorts of control problems just as you are running out of speed. Remember we should always fly with a definate margin for error. The better or more current you are the lower the accepted margin, but there is always (if your smart) a margin. I really find that landing three-point with a cross wind requiring compensation for in the air leaves little room for error especially if you bounce it then you really are at the mercy. Stiff cross-winds I find are most easily handled by getting a main-wheel on the ground, make sure your aircraft is tracking straight and not starting to skate downwind then put the tailwheel on then the downwind wheel, sure takes the load of the brakes and your fully controlled maximising crosswind control (you park it then of course).
I don't know if when flying an 180 or 185 (apart from take off) I would prong full forward on landing. My fear would be that if I ran into a soft spot I'd feel alot safer with the weight aft of the mains not centred on them especially as you slowed. How do you taxi a tailwheel and why do you hold the stick back..same reason I wouldn't prong forward...

[Chimbu chuckles]

In a C185 you can actually pole forward very hard once the aircraft is on the ground and it won't tip very far over...as long as you don't stand on the brakes as well. Empty on very soft ground you could risk flipping and in that case I would three point...somewhere I have a picture of a C185 on it's roof in PNG. Fully loaded very little chance though.

Was a time when I was want to taxi tail up...just because...it's not that hard to do...works best with flap 20 and very high powersettings against brakes and of course pushing on the elevator as hard as you can. With little practice I could taxi slowly in, turn 180 degrees and stop in the parking spot before lowering the tailwheel gently to the ground. Of course very bloody noisy and a little hard on the brakes...actually managed to put it to good use a couple of times when ferrying back from a bush strip having lost the tailwheel all together.

It's not a matter of one method over the other...they both have there strong points...on grass, soft, muddy, rough or steep I will always 3 point...on bitumen whether windy or calm I generally wheel land.

Some taildraggers I have flown do not lend themselves to wheelers at all however...the Helio Courier was one...but you were only touching down at about 25-30 kts so not an issue...max crosswind allowed was 7 kts so if really windy you could and did hover land across the runway or on a taxiway into wind. Interesting aeroplane the HC-300. Landing into typical dry season SE trades at Moresby you could 3 point and stop completely within the length of the piano keys.:E

[Paterbrat]

Most tail wheel aircraft I used the three pointer however the Daks were nearly always wheeled on. Did three point them a couple of times but was told that if the tailwheel lock broke it was a bugger to change and not a popular move. Came in light load once from Zanzibar which was only a 30 min hop with a 20 Kt headwind and doing a shortfield threepointer in the Dakota on the short cross runway at Dar es Salaam just to see how short it could be landed and making the first turnoff with no problem. If one did start a bounce on the wheelers with them then it was yoke forward, but one could overdo it. A friend bent all the prop tips back by nosing the Dak over too much, I often wondered how high the tail had got on that one. On the Auster Cub Chippies Citabrias Stearmans 180's and 185's I don't think I ever tried wheeling them in.

[185skywagon]

Chuck,
what was your main objection to using wheelers or tail low wheelers on some of those PNG strips?
was it because of getting them pinned on, on un-even surfaces?

I have sold my 185A and bought a 185F. The F model 3 points much easier than the A model. I think this is because the F model gives up flying much sooner due to its stupid camber lift wing.

Have you flown both the early and late model ones??
what are your thoughts on their differences?

[fitternturner]

At least with a wheeler you actually arrive while you are still in control of the aeroplane, you can see where you are going and if the a/c you fly is fitted with a flap switch or lever that is easy to use with out looking for it, retract the flaps on touchdown with a bit of forward pressure and it won't fly again, also you aren't flogging the tailwheel to pieces.
OK S/L 132 or whatever it is says 3 point, full stall etc etc, shimmy can't happen if the tailwheel lock is adjusted correctly, if the tailwheel is unlocked with the elevator neutral or aft, of course it will shimmy unless you land 3 point with the stick hard back!

[Chimbu chuckles]

MJL upside down at Kisengam (http://www.fototime.com/{44FDCF08-19CC-42FC-A8BA-6A282E7DC60F}/picture.JPG)

The were of course many strips you could wheel land on in the right conditions but the vast majority of 'real' PNG strips were very short and VERY steep and very rough. Some too were down hill in the touchdown zone and then through a muddy area followed by a steep uphill...all in 400m. Many had bumps and swails that were just waiting to throw an aeroplane into the air even at rediculously slow speed on takeoff or landing.

Unlike dry old Oz PNG gets LOTS of ran..sometimes longish, flat coastal or lowland strips were not much better than swamp surrounded by cone markers and a tattered old windsock....errosion could be a factor on the steep strips in the mountains...long grass was very often a factor because the villagers were not always terribly dillegent.

Mud and the result for a mate's wheeler (http://www.fototime.com/{A07DDA4F-8FF6-49A8-928E-30E888C5F04D}/picture.JPG) He was landing in heavy rain.

see how far down the big tyres are in the mud (http://www.fototime.com/{F92CAB5F-D047-4A86-8724-EC56A5E19EC0}/picture.JPG)

With all due respect to the chap who wrote the article I am at a loss to accept

One of the great misconceptions about wheel landings is that they must be flown faster than a three pointer. Not so; use the same speed. For example, 60kts in a Cessna 180 or 170.


Three pointers are a full stall landing...anyone ever done a full stall wheeler? Thought not.:ok:

On really steep strips you must approach at a higher IAS in order to get the nose up for the landing...imagine the attitude required to 3 point on a 17-20% sloped strip. If you swoop up into a steep strip which is also really rough and try to pin it on wheeler fashion you are just begging to have a prop strike...the ground passing between the wheels could easily be 6 inches higher than what the wheels are experiencing...once while route endorsing a new pilot he arrived a little more 'firmly' in a three point attitude on a grass strip that was about 10% slope and not even close to being as bumpy and swaily as many...he was a little slow and didn't have quite the energy required to properly flare and be flying parallel to the slope for the secnd or two required to land nice, he mushed on rather than landing...the undercarriage splayed out a little and we smashed the pod...not the sort of place to wheel land:ooh:

In the final analysis it was, to me, all about energy management...enough energy to land nicely and none left to go strange places after you landed....if you wheel land there is a period where you must go straight while lowering the tailwheel down easy...I don't wanna do that in 4 inches of slimy mud or with the aeroplane being flung back into the air at 20kts....much better to be fully stalled and either be dragging the tailwheel through the mud aiding staying straight or a couple of little crow hops on the way to the parking bay...remember too that a go around was rarely possible from a mile or two out on final...you absolutely had to land on the strip...or crash nearby (http://www.fototime.com/{0A724F8D-EC64-4F99-B1D0-23FC9DA0DD01}/picture.JPG)

If any of you are in any doubt about how muddy or how wet I am talking about a couple of examples. Once in an Islander and once in a Twotter I have deliberately ground looped and applied full power to stop all in 400-500m...I am prepared to admit the first 90 degrees of said ground loops were not deliberate:sad: Sliding up a strip sideways in full reverse in a fully loaded twotter definately gets the heart rate right up there.

Once I landed in the rain at a island strip and the bow wave from the islander nose wheel was hitting the props and being flung back across the windshield to such an extent that it was exactly like being in a drive through car wash...but instead of soap suds it was muddy water, grass and a green frog...I **** you not:} Twas a nice long strip...landed C402s there sometimes...prolly 700m...I slid to a halt sideways.

Anyone up for a wheeler in said conditions?

Re early models and late models...my first PNG 'command' was P2-BAF, a 1963 model and my 185 pictured above was a 1961 model....although both had been upgraded with IO 520s. Some others I flew were late 60s Ds or Es (I think) and mid 70s F models and and the C180s I flew for the mission (Talair used to lend me to the Catholic Mission at Kiunga to train their pilots) and a mate (who gave me my own set of keys to his beautiful, fully optioned 180 P2-KIK) were late 70s models. I think the early Cs with the big engine were the pick of the litter landing wise....the Fs just didn't seem as nice.

[185skywagon]

chimbu chuckles,
thanks for the detailed explanation. In light of the described conditions, i would have to agree with your reasoning.
wheelers and mud of unknown depth, are not a good combination.
cheers,
185

[Chimbu chuckles]

BTW anyone wondering about the C180 off the side of the strip at Arufi it's the same one I flew a mth back in the UK (http://www.fototime.com/{52858829-3DB8-4E22-9FBB-932C4AD8E196}/picture.JPG) She was shipped back to the UK and rebuilt by another mate.

Lovely little aeroplane:ok:

[poteroo]

'fessing up'

Must admit to being apprehensive seeing someone post some of my long forgotten comments on t/w flying.

Thank you all for being very understanding - and even fair, in your comments. Must admit to fearing a storm of abuse from experts.

CC

You are right in respect of PNG ops with the soft surfaces. I was trained on 185's by Ron Firns at STOL in 65/66, and we all did 3 pointers...regardless.I'd have never considered going into places like Efogi,Naoro,Tedebedi etc any other way than stick back in lap.

It was only after doing my aggie with Max Hazelton in '71 that I got into the wheelon technique, and I think that was more because we always landed the 180's & 188's empty and could 'fast taxi' them up to the super dump with the tail up.

Hard and rough ag strips played hell with tailwheels,particularly the t/w attach bulkhead - which used to result in those big solid rivets 'working' themselves into a failure.

Training

I still instruct,(just turned 65),and still insist on people learning every possible technique with t/w's. Most recent job was in a C180K, which used to be with one of the missions on the Pap side. Will look up it's logs, and post a pic on the TPNG thread.


Happy days,

[Turboman]

Giday RV6.

My intention in posting your article was not to be critical but rather to promote some discussion on the pro's and con's of both techniques.

I have been aware of your article for some time and it has inspired some debate within the company I work for, so I though I would widen the discussion group. I understand it was not necessarily written for the professional pilot, but I thought it would be a good way to start. I hope you don't mind.

P.S. AAAA conference is in Perth next year, starting 12th June, if your interested.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ononge (http://www.fototime.com/{32A4B7C6-AED7-4BFA-97CC-A3B9723E331C}/picture.JPG)

I used to wheel land here because, like the ag strips RV6 is discussing, it was hard and really rough on the the tailwheels...as opposed to big bumps and swails that fling you back into the air...if memory serves I lost a tailwheel here even though wheel landing.

Just as I was checking back on this thread I was think how cool it would be to get the article's author on here...welcome RV6 :ok:

Chuckles

[poteroo]

Turboman

Might get to AAAA in 2006, tho I'm not an active aggie. I am still involved quite a bit with lots of the aggies because I'm an active consultant in crop protection, which includes application technology. Have been on several reviews of drift at WA level.I do quite a bit of work lobbying the APVMA,(formerly the National Registration Authority), in regards to spray application and drift laws and new rulings.

Currently just submitted response on the review of diuron herbicide, wherein they are trying to impose buffer zones of between 500 and 750 metres for aerial, and 100m for ground booms. Once this rubbish is taken by them and placed on product labels - then we may as well sell up! Diuron is just so safe - can't wait to see what their stupid model comes out with for SU's and phenoxies!

The other review which has just closed is in relation to drift, and that's not great news either. The APVMA is set on imposing drift all sorts of label requirements based on compuror models for drift - most of which are quite impractical and overly pessimistic. They have doublecrossed the application industry - both ground and air - because it had always been stated that the application details would be left for industry to sort out - ie, best practice. And, it was never intended that labels become overly prescriptive either - the plan was that industry would self-educate, and there'd be no problems.

Problem is, the chemical manufacturers want everything on the label - so it's enforceable.

Chuck

Often read your comments on PNG. Brings back fond memories because the 60's really were the best of times to be up there.

Have recently sold the c170, and it's like losing my left arm! The RV6 is a fun machine, and really hacks along,(170KTAS@10k), but the 5.00 tyres were never meant for paddock work. (and yes, it's rego really is VNE !) Beginning construction of a 180 HP RV-9A next year, and it's rego is VFE.

Have a mates' 160HP Supercub in my care for several months over here, but it's a different ship to the t/w Cessnas. STOL to the max - but not a cruiser.

cheers,

[jon s gull]

just taking a step back...if an AC can fly slower at greater angles of attack up to the point of stall surely the slowest landing possible wil be in the three point attitude, all other considerations aside. Your comments all
regarding you

[Chimbu chuckles]

You're correct...a full stall three pointer leaves little energy left to take you new and exciting places...a wheeler not so...particularly bounding up a strip that's not smooth....no doubt it can be hard on tailwheels...I had three break off over the years although one was corrosion in the spring tube causing it to snap...the other two were metal fatigue in the big bolt that runs down through the middle and has the grease nipple on top....tailwheels are cheaper than props and wings though. Occasionally C206s used to lose nosewheels on the rough strips....NOW THAT gets expensive!

But it does vary between types and landing conditions...wouldn't even consider three pointing on bitumen in a crosswind or a tailwind.

Chuck.

[airag3]

During my Ag'Rating training I was taught 3 pointers in the 180 by a very good school (plug) in Deni'and they are both enjoyable and rewarding and certainly have their place, as Chimbu says.

Well done Turboman/RV6 on an excellent thread.

[SNS3Guppy]

I land both three point and on the mains as the situation and the aircraft may demand. On aircraft with a very low tail and no steering outside of brakes, wheel landings are often preferred, transitioning down to a locked tail.

Is one better than the other? Seems to be a chicken and egg concept...it all depends what you're doing, what you're doing it in, and the conditions under which you're doing it.

I think being proficient in both methods of landing is important, regardless of what you use.