X/winds and tail wheel airplanes.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Seems like this crew just love to dissect the how to land subject so lets explore that art for a while.

When landing a tail wheel airplane on a paved runway in a strong X/wind do you three point it or wheel it on?

And why do you use your preferred method?

P.S. :

I prefer the wheel landing for almost every tail wheel airplane I ever flew.

[Flyingmac]

Can of worms Chuck.:= http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/493782-age-old-debate-3-pointer-wheeler.html

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Either work well on the Chipmunk.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Can of worms Chuck.

Why should it be a can of worms discussing a subject that is so important?

[Desert185]

Cub, Beaver or Skywagon, I like a wheel landing for those conditions.

In my 185, that I've had since 2000, I also use 20 flaps, brakes to aid directional control as necessary and raise the flaps at touchdown so the rudder doesn't blank when the tail drops. The Micro Aero VG's on the vertical also noticeably contribute to directional control. A tail low wheel landing also contributes to enhanced visibility for directional control on a narrow strip.

This should be interesting. Arai installed in the event of :ugh:.

:)

[Croqueteer]

A wheeler gives less angle of attack as you slow down, therefore less chance of the into wind wing lifting.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I 3 point the little airplanes, J3, Champ etc, and wheel land the bigger singles like a Cessna 180/185 in a cross wind, although I usually 3 point those airplanes in calm conditions.

I always wheel land the bigger iron like a Beech 18.

Again I don't think this should be a "right" way "wrong" way discussion. There are advantages and disadvantages to both that need to be understood, but the important thing is to have and practice
the skills to do both well.

[Desert185]

Again I don't think this should be a "right" way "wrong" way discussion. There are advantages and disadvantages to both that need to be understood, but the important thing is to have and practice
the skills to do both well.

Yep. That's it...and to evaluate and apply which techique/configuration works best for the type and conditions at the time.

[India Four Two]

Chipmunk, Citabria, Scout, Super Cub - always full-flap three-point.
Stearman - three-point, but I haven't yet been faced with any serious cross-winds.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It is imperative for any pilot flying a tail wheel airplane to be equally proficient and equally comfortable with both wheel landings and three point landings.

There a few airplanes that can be quite difficult to land using either method.

The Pitts Special can be difficult to wheel land due to lack of forward vision, therefore lends its self to be easier to three point.

As to difficulty to three point the best example I can think of is the Grumman Turbo Goose because not only is it short coupled there is also the problem of the turbine engines and the power response time lapse issue.

However most common certified airplanes can be landed using what ever method best serves the conditions and the type.

From my own experience in the training business I found that there were more light airplane pilots that were uncomfortable doing wheel landings than doing three point landings.

And that is generally due to poor flight instruction.

[Maoraigh1]

In a Jodel DR1050, with a gusting crosswind, I try to stay on centreline with wing down technique; hold off until one mainwheel touches down; wait for other wheels to settle.
(I never kick straight with the Jodel - but often prefer to do so with a Pa28)

[Big Pistons Forever]

From my own experience in the training business I found that there were more light airplane pilots that were uncomfortable doing wheel landings than doing three point landings.

And that is generally due to poor flight instruction.

Unfortunately finding good tailwheel instruction is getting harder and harder as so few of the, generally younger, folks doing instruction have ever flown a tailwheel aircraft, let alone have enough experience to be competent to instruct on them.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well the reality is there are still thousands of tail wheel airplanes still flying, which means they are not exactly rare.

Is it to unreasonable to fix the " Hard to find new instructors that can fly a tail wheel airplane " problem by the simple requirement that part of the new flight instructor requirements be they must demonstrate they can fly a tail wheel airplane?

:ugh: :ugh:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Well the reality is there are still thousands of tail wheel airplanes still flying, which means they are not exactly rare.



Yes but they are extremely rare at fight schools thus ensuring that it is unlikely any new pilots will be exposed to them. Furthermore the chance of a new commercial pilot getting a job actually flying a taildragger is getting pretty remote. Ag flying is much diminished pretty much everywhere and the Cessna 206 and Caravan is now the mainstay of Bush flying in the Northern areas of North America and Africa.

Flight schools follow the market demand and unfortunately tailwheel flying is not in demand.

Sad to say but tailwheel time is becoming like round engine time, a great experience but now very much the exception not the rule.......

[Pontius]

Runway length permitting, I leave the flaps up and wheel it on. The extra speed reduces the crosswind component and leaves more Bernoullis flowing over the wings and control surfaces for more control authority.

Having said that, I do the same for aircraft with their tailwheels at the wrong end of the fuselage but choose to use a lower flap setting, rather than no flaps, doing the day job.

[dubbleyew eight]

in really strong crosswinds wheeling and 3 pointing are both deficient.
(windsock rigidly horizontal at 90 degrees to the strip is what I have in mind.)

into wind wing down, out of wind wheel high in the air and 2 point it on using the tailwheel and the into wind main.
that way the lift from the wing is pointing into wind and opposing drift.
(my tailwheel has a solid link controlling it. no springs or sloppy stuff.)

after touchdown the stick is moved to the aft stop and fully into wind.

[Flyingmac]

Like this? Alien Landings 1 - YouTube

[Desert185]

Sad to say but tailwheel time is becoming like round engine time, a great experience but now very much the exception not the rule.......

Similar to a lot of folks, at least in the U.S., not knowing how to drive a car with a manual transmission. What was once the norm is largely now the unknown and often feared. Pity...

Someday, most pilots won't know how to fly steam gauge aircraft. Pity, again...

[dubbleyew eight]

flyingmac, very close.
austers can be landed like that as well btw.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Similar to a lot of folks, at least in the U.S., not knowing how to drive a car with a manual transmission. What was once the norm is largely now the unknown and often feared. Pity...

It is not like tail wheel airplanes are real rare, there are lots of them still flying.

And it is not like the tail wheel airplane is some new invention that only the very skilled can master.

The regulator who sets the standard and issues instructor ratings should at least define the limits of an instructors rating, if the new instructor has never flown a tail wheel airplane then the license should be issued as valid for nose wheel airplanes only.

Then at least tail wheel airplane owners would be able to judge the skills level of a instructor when they are thinking of hiring their services.

[Desert185]

Chuck

When I earned my Pvt/Cml/CFI, tailwheel endorsements didn't exist. I was grandfathered in. I basically taught myself to be as proficient as possible before giving instruction. Years later, I wonder how I did it compared to what I know now. :uhoh:

All an instructor needs is a tailwheel endorsement to meet FAA requirements for operation and instruction. The endorsement goes to his pilot's license. While that is not really a solid qualifier for giving tailwheel instruction, neither is being nosewheel qualified in a 206 a qualifier for backcountry instruction with DA and heavy load issues. The "student" should exercise due diligence in finding an instructor, while understanding caveat emptor.

The POH and FAA PTS descriptions of short and soft field operations only scratches the surface of what to do in the backcountry. Unfortunately, that is usually the extent of the run-of-the-mill flight instructor's knowledge and experience.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Desert185 I live just north of you in the Socialist Republic of Canada and thanks to inertia and the lack of neurons our regulator has not got around to requiring an endorsement for tail wheel airplanes.

I used to own a flight school with both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft and it never ceased to amaze me that the regulator would issue licenses to low time pilots with such limited flying skills you were playing Russian Roulette with your airplanes every time they flew one.

It boggles my mind to see something as common as two little Cessna's sitting out on the ramp, one a Cessna 140 and the other a Cessna 150 and out of say ten instructors at the airport non of them are capable of teaching on the Cessna 140.....

Pathetic state of affairs in my opinion.

[GK430]

Just out of curiosity, what is anyone's preference on short bumpy grass surfaces? Three pointer or wheeler?
I have a number of hours in tailwheel RV's and the Aviat Husky and only done wheelers on smooth metalled surfaces.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I would three point on bumpy grass surfaces.

The Husky will take a bumpy grass surface wheeling on better than the RV, from my experience flying them.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It boggles my mind to see something as common as two little Cessna's sitting out on the ramp, one a Cessna 140 and the other a Cessna 150 and out of say ten instructors at the airport non of them are capable of teaching on the Cessna 140.....

Pathetic state of affairs in my opinion.

It's just as bad here in UK. Years ago Lancashire Aero Club at Barton had a Citabria on the fleet. It was available for £60 an hour wet, when the club 152s were about £85. But the little taildragger went almost unused as PPLs queued to hire the horrid 152s and ignored the Citabria. For those of us in the Chipmunk group the Citab was an ideal stand-in if our beloved dHC1 was unavailable for any reason.

And IIRC there was only one instructor at LAC who could fly it!

Why is this? Why is the world of PPL training almost 100% nosewheel? Why are almost 100% of PPLs incapable of flying a taildragger?

Pathetic is the word! There are so many fabulous aeroplanes unavailable to the nosewheel-only pilot!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Pathetic just about sums this up SSD.

How did aviation get to the place where so many flight instructors are so poorly trained in airplane handling skills that a Citabria is beyond their ability to fly????

The Citabria is arguably the most docile tail wheel airplane out there.

[Piper.Classique]

Pathetic just about sums this up SSD.

How did aviation get to the place where so many flight instructors are so poorly trained in airplane handling skills that a Citabria is beyond their ability to fly????



Sad but true. Probably came about because instructing was used to build hours while waiting for an airline job, badly paid, no respect for those instructors who genuinely tried to do a good job, and no consideration for the paying student by the airline wannabes.

Never flown a Citabria myself, but if I had to vote for world's easiest taildragger I would go for the Pawnee, brilliant tug but a bit heavy on fuel. Or maybe the Wilga, what's more it has a round engine.

Back on topic though, I prefer a wheeler on tarmac in a crosswind in the Super cub, and three point with the Jodel. Just seems more comfortable, I can't really come up with a logical reason. Oh, and I might take out some of the crosswind component on a wide runway by going a bit diagonal. Next problem is taxying with less than efficient brakes in the Cub, with the original bag brakes. Forget it altogether in the 112 with pathetic cable brakes!

I mostly fly off grass, or at the moment, mud. Does anyone have a system for washing the underside of the wing without water running down inside their sleeves?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I mostly fly off grass, or at the moment, mud. Does anyone have a system for washing the underside of the wing without water running down inside their sleeves?

that is an easy one.

Get someone else to wash it. :E

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Do you remember The French Flying Legends Piper.Classique?

[Piper.Classique]

Hi Chuck! French Flying Legends a bit before my time in the country.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

No problem..:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

How did aviation get to the place where so many flight instructors are so poorly trained in airplane handling skills that a Citabria is beyond their ability to fly????



I think that your statement is an unfair generalization. The fact that many instructors have no tailwheel time is not that they are incompetent, it is because virtually no flight schools operate tailwheel aircraft.

There are undoubtedly many instructors that have less than impressive aircraft handling skills but there are also lots of young keen instructors that have excellent hands and feet and would have no trouble flying a Citabria if one were actually available to them.....

[GK430]

I mostly fly off grass, or at the moment, mud. Does anyone have a system for washing the underside of the wing without water running down inside their sleeves?

I know the feeling well. Recently invested (very cheap) in an extendable rod with a pad/cloth on the end. Seems to work pretty well on the underside and keeps you dry and free of other items that stick to aircraft undersides flying from farm strips where livestock graze ;)

And thanks for that piece of advice Chuck. I'll stick with three pointers on the rough strips.

[scotbill]

After about 1000 hours on taildraggers, I would strongly discourage anyone new to Xwinds from attempting 3 pointers. Wheeling it on with into wind aileron gives much better control and lowering the tail slowly gives maximum rudder availability. If flaps are fitted, whipping them up on touchdown is the equivalent of lift dump on larger machinery.
One would hope that on most rough grass fields it would be possible to land into wind but the thought of being bounced into the air with stick hard back is not a pleasant one.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

After about 1000 hours on taildraggers, I would strongly discourage anyone new to Xwinds from attempting 3 pointers. Wheeling it on with into wind aileron gives much better control and lowering the tail slowly gives maximum rudder availability.

Exactly...unless there is a airplane specific reason you should not wheel it on....

...and after around 10,000 hours of tail wheel time I have yet to fly one that could not be wheeled on.

[dubbleyew eight]

aeroplanes certainly differ.

in my aeroplane (a Wittman W8 Tailwind) I have a solid link to the tailwheel.
so I always get the tailwheel on the ground and nail it there.
then I have absolute control of where the tail is going.

2 pointers in high wind or 3 pointers generally and full aft stick give me best control of the landing.

YMMV (your mileage may vary) :ok:

[piperboy84]

I fly a Maule MX-7-180 TW in and out of unprepared fields (grass, dirt and sand) and 3 point it every time, the primary reason being when I bought the plane from the factory I took a flight with Mr Ray Maule and he told me to always 3 point it, now i am not sure if that was his best advice in regards to the planes performance or a reflection of my capabilities, but I have followed his advice and it lands like a dream and is very forgiving regardless of how rough the field is.

[India Four Two]

Everyone has a different view of this topic. I don't have a vast number of hours, but probably over 3000 tail-wheeler landings - they add up quickly when you are towing gliders. ;)

I, and every tow-pilot in my club that I have watched, always three-points, or two-points in significant cross winds, always with full flap. I've never had a problem and none of my colleagues ever admitted to one either. Admittedly mostly on grass, but there were quite a few landings on hard runways.

This includes a long-time club member, now sadly deceased, who had over 10,000 tows in his log book, starting out with a DH 82C. Besides his longevity as a tow-pilot, he is famous for his statement "It's not a rough tow, unless you get rolled inverted by the rotor!" :E

[shortstripper]

Actually there are a lot of places you can learn to fly taildraggers in the UK now. When I started in the 1980's I had to seek out somewhere and ended up driving from Sussex up to Cambridge as I was determined to learn on them. Now there are schools in most areas that will teach you from the start if you want. Unfortunately, not all the instructors around now are that proficient to teach anything more than the basics though! I was fortunate as my instructor was an ex Lancaster pilot!

SS

Oh and whilst I prefer tail down in most instances I prefer a wheeler and wing down in strong crosswinds ... usually! :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh and whilst I prefer tail down in most instances I prefer a wheeler and wing down in strong crosswinds ... usually!

And that is because it is the safest way to do it......

......it is one of the basics of airplane handling fundamentals.

What really puzzles me is why so many pilots do not understand this.

[youngman1]

Hi Chuck
I'm currently learning to fly a Pitts. Could you possibly go into some detail on why wheelers in cross winds are the way to go please.

In the Pitts i'm currently 3 pointing on, then lifting the tail to lower the AoA thus lift, which seems to settle her on nicely. This seems to be a common technique amongst pitts pilots.

i haven't had a chance to try a wheeler in strong cross winds but would love to learn about why i really should be trying it soon, especially if it makes me safer!

[Piper.Classique]

Chuck, they don't do it that way because their instructor teaches them to three point....
And the instructor does that because thats how he/she was taught
And most instructors can't afford to hire a taildragger and wring it out properly and find out for themselves because instructing is what they are doing while they try to get hired by an airline, rather than a career.
Times I am very happy to have learned to fly a Cub at Lasham, pulling gliders in to the sky. Minimum of six tows an hour, land where there is a vacant bit of airfield not too far from the next glider. Teaches landings and eyes out on stalks. Doesn't do wonders for navigation skills or pratting around on the radio.
No offence intended to career instructors. I was taught by one, and am trying to repay forward what he gave me.

[Armchairflyer]

Very low hour PPL in general and even much more low-houred in taildraggers, but doesn't a wheel landing in a crosswind just postpone the problem? I can see why tail up with unobstructed rudder and higher speed would give better control at touchdown, but one has to slow down and get the tail down at some moment, and if I remember my TW instructor correctly, that results in an even more vulnerable moment compared to putting two wheels (windward main wheel and tailwheel) on the ground, especially with a steerable tailwheel (as in the Citabria I had my few lessons in).

[The500man]

youngman1, these are just my thoughts on the Pitts from my own experience with it.

Wheel landing the Pitts requires more precise control than 3-pointing. In the 3-point attitude you will have around 11-12 degrees AoA, and landing at flying speed, it's almost like skimming a stone across water. The only way to stop it flying is to put it on and slow it down. 3-point, you can hit the brakes fairly hard and if the tail comes up so be it, there's no major drama. If you land with the tail up you may find it harder to get on the brakes without starting to nose-over (not good with a big prop), and you have less drag to help slow you down. Also if you have anything less than a very gentle touch down on the mains it will jump off again and chew up a fair chunk of runway.

The 1971 UK flight manual supplement to the FAA approved flight manual contains the following:

"Section 3 - Performance Information...

...D. Landing

The Landing should always be 3-point.

Brakes can be used fairly hard, if necessary, almost regardless of wind strength and direction.

Ailerons should be used to assist keep into-wind wing down when on the ground if necessary."

I'm not suggesting the manual is the only way to land a Pitts, because I've seen many pilots fly it differently, but if you are going to do something different from the flight manual I suggest you make sure you fully understand why. If the answer is "because I was taught that way" and it was never otherwise explained to you than that is probably a good example of what Chuck is suggesting with problems in tail-wheel instruction.

[Desert185]

Most of my tailwheel time is in a 185 that I have had since 2000. I primarily fly in a mountain environment from the Sierra Nevada in Calif and Nevada north to and within Alaska. So some is near sea level and some is at high density altitudes (Nevada and Idaho).

When I experience crosswinds, there is often mechanical turbulence with updrafts and down drafts. I choose to do a tail low wheel landing and roll it on. The plane has 40 flaps, and that is my normal flap landing configuration, but not when the wind is a gusty crosswind at higher density altitudes. Under those conditions I use 20 flaps for less drag and a better sink recovery with power. With full flaps, the 300HP, at times, may not be enough to arrest a big sinker in the mountains...even with a Sportsman cuff, ART WingX and Micro Aero VG's.

The home runway is above 5,000' and only 1,400' long. It is also narrow, so with all things combined, I choose the tail low wheel landing, rolling it up on the mains for better forward visibility to keep it on the center of the runway. Brakes and rudder as required to maintain directional control. As the tail drops, I retract the flaps to improve airflow over the tail. The VG's also assist in directional control.

Now, if I choose to do 3-point under those conditions, there is a good possibility that a gust will lighten the aircraft and create issues with directional control as there will not be much weight on the mains for directional braking and the tail might also be blanked-out. I have even gone airborne again resulting in a go around. I found through experience that it is better to have a lower angle of attack (tail up) for better forward visibility over the nose, enhanced wheel braking and improved flow over the tail for better directional control (retracting the flaps as the tail settles). Given the short runway (and the minor obstacles at both ends), I can't "play it" and work it down. I have to go with the high percentage success configuration and technique that has worked for me in my airplane. On those rare days when there is no wind, its a joy to come floating in, a bit on the slow side with full flaps and do a graceful 3-point.

All of the above is done with a crab final, I might add. There are aircraft types that demand specific landing techniques and configurations, so for those, how you must do it is pretty cut and dried. The correct way in one may be the wrong way in another. Read, get a good instructor, ask questions, experiment within your own limitations and practice as much as you can afford under different conditions, realizing that what you learn in one aircraft may not necessarily transfer to another.

[dubbleyew eight]

All of the above is done with a crab final, I might add. There are aircraft types that demand specific landing techniques and configurations, so for those, how you must do it is pretty cut and dried. The correct way in one may be the wrong way in another. Read, get a good instructor, ask questions, experiment within your own limitations and practice as much as you can afford under different conditions, realizing that what you learn in one aircraft may not necessarily transfer to another.

that paragraph contains some very sound advice.:ok:

[HappyJack260]

I've a couple of hundred hours in tailwheel - mostly Chipmunks, Citabria/Decathlon and Pitts S2A/S2B/S2C, plus a couple of hours in a Tiger Moth and an Extra 300L.

I was taught to 3-point all of them, except the Tiger which I was told should be wheeled on, due to the relatively ineffective ailerons and rudder. I preferred to 3-point the Chippie but after a few years of flying Pitts with a much higher sink, kept on coming in a little too fast, resulting in a wheeler, after which the tail would drop as speed washed off.

However, I should not recommend a wheeler for any Pitts. It can be done, but unless you're very smooth the high speed required to offset the sink rate and make it a wheeler, will tend to result in the bungie gear throwing you back into the air. A 3-pointer helps kill the lift and keeps you on the ground, though even experienced pilots will often get a little skip before the aircraft settles. You just have to get used to the [lack of] sight picture, and steer the aircraft down the runway as you land, by peripheral vision.

In crosswind conditions, the rudder and ailerons in the Pitts are powerful enough to let you bring the aircraft in with a 2-pointer, tail and windward mainwheel, with the windward wing low. As the speed comes off the downwind gear will lower and then you can have fun pedalling hard on the rudders/brakes to keep it on the centreline.

I've landed a Pitts a few times with greater than 20 knots crosswind component, and the windward wing down technique will stop you drifting; you don't want to try a crab in those conditions as by the time you've straightened up you'll have drifted halfway across the runway.

[S-Works]

My Terrier A61 is almost possible to wheel on as it's so tail heavy. It needs to 3 pointed to land properly. Wheeling it just leaves you bouncing down the runway and weather cocking back and forth. It can be 3 pointed in very sting crosswinds with practice.

I fly a tailwheel twin turbine for a living and that is only ever wheeled on. We use reverse thrust against forward yoke to lower the tail.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Interesting Pitts observation above. I've never flown one but witnessed many, many landings on Barton's rough turf. Never saw a really tidy Pitts landing yet - there's always a hint of mains/tail/mains/tail bouncing in the roll out. Unsurprising in a short-coupled aeroplane on rough ground with a relatively high landing speed, I suppose.

[A and C]

I don't think you will ever see a tidy Pitts landing, it is just that sort of aircraft and considered by those on the warbird fraternity to be one of the hardest taildragers to land.

I have always been of the three point school but this is because I have flown aircraft such as the DHC-1 & Extra 200 & 300 and these aircraft are quite happy with the three point technique, some older types don't like this as they tip stall in the three point attitude usually with very unfortunate results, hence one always wheels these aircraft onto the ground.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The bottom line is anyone who is being trained to fly a tail wheel airplane "" MUST '' be equally proficient performing both three point landings and wheel landings.

If they are not they were improperly trained.

Can we all agree with that?

[S-Works]

Not really, Chuck.....

We teach people to fly the aircraft they are in, not every aircraft they might ever fly. We therefore teach the technique that is appropriate for the particular aircrafts handling characteristics and if they move to a different type we teach the appropriate method for that.

We do not teach people to 3 point the Dornier as the correct technique for it is to wheel it on. We do not teach people to wheel land the Terrier as it is not the correct landing technique for that aircraft.

I am quite happy to sign someone off for the Terrier without teaching a wheeler. If the student moves to something that needs further skill development and new technique then I am more then happy to do so. Therefore to suggest that someone who is not trained in both methods is improperly trained is incorrect.......

[Chuck Ellsworth]

O.K. I guess I am on the wrong track in my thinking.

When checking out a licensed pilot on a given tail wheel airplane the method of landing a given airplane is what one should teach.

I must apologize for my expectations being to high, I did not take into consideration the large number of tail wheel airplanes out there that are limited to only being able to use one method of landing.

The real fault may be with the way these different kinds of skills are taught, what is needed is more clarity in the limitations of these different airplanes when signing out the student. ( competent on tail wheel airplanes for three point landings only. )

For instance when signing out a pilot on say an airplane such as the Terrier it should be clear that the student was only taught three point landings.

That will protect the instructor in case the student wrecks the airplane trying to wheel land it, as the student was not taught how to wheel land.

I think it is time for me to take up another hobby as flying has become far to difficult for someone like me who seems to be stuck back in the stone age of aviation.. :ugh:

[Fly-by-Wife]

Chuck,

I think the ideal is to ensure that tailwheel training is done on an aeroplane that can be both wheeled and 3-pointed, and that the pilot as a result has competence in both, and therefore little difficulty moving to any tailwheel aeroplane, as long as he/she flies it according to the POH.

No harm in aiming for the best / optimum solution. :)

FBW

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Chuck,

I think the ideal is to ensure that tail wheel training is done on an aeroplane that can be both wheeled and 3-pointed, and that the pilot as a result has competence in both, and therefore little difficulty moving to any tail wheel aeroplane, as long as he/she flies it according to the POH.

I agree completely, however the reality is there are a lot of pilots out there who for whatever reason believe that flying a tail wheel airplane is an advanced form of flying requiring exceptional skills.

For some reason I am unable to grasp the belief that it is just to difficult to teach anyone a simple skill like being able to perform more than method of landing an airplane.

Sure there are some airplanes that are better suited to either three pointing or wheel landing, however " most " tail wheel airplanes are capable of landing either way.

Personally I can only recall two airplanes that I was not comfortable landing either way.

The C117.....I never tried to three point it...because it lacked the rudder effectiveness of the DC3.

The Turbine powered Grumman Goose....I never tried to three point it because it lacked rudder effectiveness in the three point attitude and using the engines for yaw control was problematic due to spool up delay.

[djpil]

I don't think you will ever see a tidy Pitts landing ...I see quite a few and most of my landings in a Pitts I claim to be tidy as well. Like Jack, I only 3 point them (and that is all I teach in the Pitts) but I know a handful of people who do tidy wheelers in them.
I instruct in a Decathlon (spring Al gear so very easy to bounce) and I find that many inexperienced people have enough trouble learning and mastering just one new skill so I usually teach just 3 pointers then do wheelers with them after they have some solo time (exception being those moving onto other types in which case they get both).
My colleague here insists on doing both 3 pointers and wheelers initially for all - on occasion when I have flown with these people a little while later I find that they are a long way short of mastering wheelers.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

My colleague here insists on doing both 3 pointers and wheelers initially for all - on occasion when I have flown with these people a little while later I find that they are a long way short of mastering wheelers.


Interesting.....


......what exactly was their problem doing wheel landings?

......poor judgement of the flare height???

[A and C]

While I agree with you in theory but there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude, so those pilots who only fly such types simply have to use only the wheeler technique.

[Mach Jump]

...there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude...

What types are they?

I'm with you on this Chuck. A tailwheel conversion isn't complete unless you teach people both techniques, and most types on which people do tailwheel training are happy being wheeled, or three pointed, but we have to accept that there are some types that are not. In my view, you cannot complete the required training in those types, and you have to do the alternative landing technique in another type.


MJ:ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote:
...there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude...
What types are they?

Yes what types are they and if the wheels touch the ground as the tips stall what is the problem?


I'm with you on this Chuck. A tailwheel conversion isn't complete unless you teach people both techniques, and most types on which people do tailwheel training are happy being wheeled, or three pointed,

You and I grasp this concept but it seems a few others do not.


but we have to accept that there are some types that are not. In my view, you cannot complete the required training in those types, and you have to do the alternative landing technique in another type.


MJ

Exactly. :ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hmmm, Getting taught how to do both 3 point and wheel landings as part of your initial tailwheel conversion.

This debate seems more like a solution in search of a problem.:confused: Personally I don't see the issue in the real world. Everyone I know who does tailwheel checkouts teaches both.:ok:

[S-Works]

The fact is tailwheel training aircraft are not easy to find. We generally train on owners aircraft. You tailor the training to the aircraft. You don't try to teach inappropriate techniques in order to achieve some sort of sense of completeness.

[Above The Clouds]

Mach Jump
A tailwheel conversion isn't complete unless you teach people both techniques, and most types on which people do tailwheel training are happy being wheeled, or three pointed, but we have to accept that there are some types that are not. In my view, you cannot complete the required training in those types, and you have to do the alternative landing technique in another type.


If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's like all aspects of flying. The more skills you have in your 'bag', the more complete pilot you are and the less likely you are to face a situation where your 'bag' is devoid of the required skill.

That's why I advocate aerobatics for all pilots so they'll have a bag full of handling skills, even if they only ever fly an A330 where even in that aeroplane it might be needed :eek: . And of course things like recovery from unusual attitudes, and stall and spin recovery, are second nature to the aeros pilot who does it by 'feel' rather than by numbers.

Being competent at 3-point and wheel landings makes you more of a 'complete' pilot than the wheel-only or 3-point only pilot.

Every tailwheel aeroplane I've flown (and there've been a few!) is capable of either technique. But if I ever get to fly a Dragon Rapide I'll no doubt be instructed never to attempt to 3-point it because of its tip-stall tendencies. The fact that I can do either only adds to my skills 'bag'. That's got to be good!

[Crash one]

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ? Quote:

There is only one way to land a tricycle aircraft, mains first. Taildraggers are different,they can be landed two ways, so I agree with Chuck, until you can land the thing either way it is not complete. You could land a trike flap less or full flaps, slight difference there? Do you stop learning once you can get it down with full flaps?

[3 Point]

In addition, the tailwheel differences training qualifies you to fly all taildraggers, not just one type. A Tailwheel differences course therefore has to be non type specific and cover all relevant techniques. I generally use several aircraft types to teach "tailwheel differences" so that the student goes away with a broad appreciation of the required techniques.

Problem is of course that the regulator never specified any syllabus or even learning objectives for this training so any old FI can just do whatever he likes! Not a great situation!

Happy landings

3 Point (and Wheelers!!)

[The500man]

Ratings should stop you flying types that require training you have not had, but there should be no problem getting instruction appropriate to your aircraft. I think it is fine to learn only the technique you need for the aircraft you want to fly and I think it should be up to the pilot to understand their own limitations if training was provided in this way and for them to seek further training for other aircraft if the need arises. Otherwise we would need ratings for individual aircraft.

Gaining a rating on an aircraft you aren't going to fly for the sake of ticking boxes seems unnecessary to me. Inexperienced pilots are not generally brave enough to go fly something new without specific instruction or a briefing from someone that knows that aircraft first and I think this may be one of the cases where pilots in reality are more sensible than the legislators.

[Mach Jump]

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ?

The point is, this is not a type conversion, it's a generic tailwheel conversion.


MJ:ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Every tailwheel aeroplane I've flown (and there've been a few!) is capable of either technique.

Same here, someday I should sit down and see if I can remember all the different ones I flew over the years.

Just off the top of my memory I can think of a few that were more demanding that most.

Pitts:

Powell Racer:

Grumman Turbo Goose:

Grumman Widgeon:

Republic Sea Bee:

That is all I can think of right now.

I can not think of any that could not be landed either way, although some were far easier to wheel on than three point.

[S-Works]

I guess not everyone is a Skygod and can land every type using either method?

I have already outlined 2 aircraft that can't be landed either way, one requires a three pointer and the other one does not permit a three pointer. Out of the many types I have flown over the years I could produce a longer list if I was actually bothered.

But as as I have already said, teach them to fly the aircraft they are in, tailor the training for that aircraft. If they move to another type that requires a different technique then teach them that. it might be a 'generic' tailwheel sign off but pilots are generally smart enough to know they will need further differences if moving to a different type and if there is one thing for certain the reality of tailwheel flying is there is no such thing as 'generic'.....

[Above The Clouds]

bose-x

That was the point I was trying to get across in my earlier post, so if I only fly the P-51 that requires a wheeler landing why would the training not be complete if I don't fly over tailwheel aircraft.

Should I wish to fly another tailwheel type then of course have the appropriate training and techniques taught.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

But as as I have already said, teach them to fly the aircraft they are in, tailor the training for that aircraft. If they move to another type that requires a different technique then teach them that.

I have not seen anyone here having any problem with this concept, as long as the instructor clearly outlines the limitations there can not be any problem as long as the trainee does not try something they are not competent in.


it might be a 'generic' tailwheel sign off but pilots are generally smart enough to know they will need further differences if moving to a different type

I fail to understand how a check out in an airplane that is specific to that airplane using only one method of landing ( three point or wheel landing. ) can be considered " generic " unless my understanding of generic is flawed.


and if there is one thing for certain the reality of tailwheel flying is there is no such thing as 'generic'.....

Tailwheel airplanes with some rare exceptions can be landed in two methods and if the student has not been taught both methods said student has not been given the proper training to be given a tail wheel endorsement such as the FAA requires.

[S-Works]

Tailwheel airplanes with some rare exceptions can be landed in two methods and if the student has not been taught both methods said student has not been given the proper training to be given a tail wheel endorsement such as the FAA requires.

As you are in Canada and I am in the UK and not teaching for FAA ratings its possibly a moot point.

I stand by my earlier comments with regard to EASA requirements. We can't really argue apples and oranges.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As you are in Canada and I am in the UK and not teaching for FAA ratings its possibly a moot point.

Bose-x airplanes fly under the same laws of aerodynamics and physics regardless of what regulatory area they happen to be in, my comments and opinions are formed around how airplanes fly and not where.

I stand by my earlier comments with regard to EASA requirements. We can't really argue apples and oranges.....


I can understand you maybe not being ecstatic with EASA however for whatever reason EASA seems to have the power to regulate a lot of changes....thankfully I quit flying before I had to be to concerned with their new rules.


My Terrier A61 is almost possible to wheel on as it's so tail heavy. It needs to 3 pointed to land properly. Wheeling it just leaves you bouncing down the runway and weather cocking back and forth.

Is the elevator effective enough to lift the tail wheel off the ground during the take off or does it fly off from the three point attitude?

[S-Works]

Is the elevator effective enough to lift the tail wheel off the ground during the take off or does it fly off from the three point attitude?

It requires full forward stick and then it pretty much three points off the ground. To get it slow enough to attempt a wheeler without bouncing down the runway the tail just slams down usually meaning a tail first landing and the resulting kangaroo down the runway. We teach them to touch the mains a fraction before the tail to smooth this out, so I suppose they are getting the wheeler you want.... ;)

The Dornier manual advises against doing a three point landing and with several thousand landings in it I understand perfectly why!! We use fly beta on approach and transition to full ground beta on touch down, this requires foreword yoke against beta in order to stop the tail smashing down and ripping the mounts.

At the end of the day it is horses for courses, if I am teaching in an aircraft that is happy in all landing configurations then we cover everything. If it is an aircraft that has strong reasons for using only one method then I think it better we achieve mastery of that method rather than risking damage to the aircraft or undermining the students confidence. If they want to cover alternate methods then we can arrange to do this in an aircraft better suited to the job.

You have to remember that most people in the UK are doing tailwheel training in order to fly a particular aircraft and its that aircraft they want to be taught to fly. Tailoring the training to cover the specific aircraft is much better teaching in my opinion rather than just trying to bludgeon them into learning things that are not relevant for the type?

I am probably done on the discussion now as we are unlikely to agree and while I am not going to try and convince you my way is correct, I get the very distinct feeling that you want to argue the point until I agree with you....... ;)

[Echo Romeo]

I own a Beagle A61 Terrier 2, I was taught only to 3 point it.

The tail end is indeed very heavy, I am no weakling but can barely lift it! which, given the Terrier isn't much bigger than a Cub, I found surprising.

However as time went by I heard various accounts from several people, some claiming the Terrier couldn't be wheeled on, others it could, so I decided to try it for myself. On the first occasion there was little, to no crosswind and I chose an 800mt grass strip with a good surface.

To my amazement I had no difficulty at all, I flew a normal approach but a few knots faster, and maybe a tad flatter, I maintained 1400rpm, then having rounded out gently nudged the wheels onto the deck, they touched just as the stall warner sounded, I then closed the throttle and progressively fed in forward stick. After a few more goes I was able to keep the tail up almost down to walking pace, which was very satisfying.

Currently I wouldn't attempt a wheeler on any runway shorter than 600mt as it does consume a lot more runway than 3 pointing, though it is now my preferred method on hard runways. As for wheeler landing my Terrier in a crosswind, I haven't, yet!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

To my amazement I had no difficulty at all, I flew a normal approach but a few knots faster, and maybe a tad flatter, I maintained 1400rpm, then having rounded out gently nudged the wheels onto the deck,

Have you tried doing a power off approach and landing from say 100 feet at the normal approach speed, rather than a flat power assisted approach and flare when doing a wheel landing?

That will use up a lot less runway.

[Desert185]

This discission highlights the fallacy of a goverment mandated tailwheel endorsement (their fix for failures). I checked out in a tailwheel aircraft before the endorsement was required and was grandfathered as a tailwheel pilot by the FAA. I had no instructor, BTW. That was the late '60's. By government opinion, I should have created an incident or accident by now. Sorry to prove you wrong, bureaucrats.

Pre or post endorsement, one is still (usually) going to get some kind of transition training mandated by whomever owns the aircraft, whether insisted upon by the insurance company or otherwise. I know when I flew the Beaver, I had quite an extensive checkout by the organization who owned them. Would having a tailwheel endorsement (that was never checked, BTW) or not have made a difference in blessing my capabilities to fly that type? I think not. Actually having an endorsement in a specific type to fly taildraggers in general by some governmental body does nothing to really endorse you to be a qualified tailwheel pilot, regardless of type...at least not in my book.

I learned a long time ago that one does not loan his wife, underwear, motorcycle or airplane (particularly a taildragger), and maybe anything with an internal combustion engine, in general, to anyone, including well meaning friends. Its just a bad idea. That's my policy. I do, somewhat hypocritically, accept loans by others if necessary, of some of the above (excluding wives), as I trust myself more than others. So far, the trust is well placed.

Blessings of good karma to all who are in pursuit of good techniques and reputations of dependability...tailwheel or otherwise.

[gasax]

I used to own a Terrier 2 and did a couple of hundred hours in it. Yep the tail is awfully heavy, only aircraft I have cricked my back lifting!

But it will wheel on. I usually three pointed it and it was just 'easier'. But with care it would wheel and roll pretty straight if that was how you started!

The Terrier is not an aircraft that requires great finesse, from memory it requires large amounts of power to change any parameter.

In that it s a little unusual. Lots of older aircraft are a 'bit unusual' but the real requirement is for a pilot to understand that and apply the right technique. This summer I hope to fly an antique with limited pitch authority, it has to be landed with some power, or it has insufficient pitch authority. Knowing this there are no real problems, just have to keep your brain in front of the aircraft and understand how to fly it!

[Desert185]

Sounds like a candidate for VG's on the horizontal.

[Silvaire1]

"Tail Heaviness" in terms of physically lifting the tail doesn't say much about the aircraft in the air. All it says is that its a heavy aircraft, and that possibly the main gear is relatively far forward of the C.G. The Helio Courier comes to mind :)

I don't think a common landing gear configuration means two aircraft should be flown the same way, or that multiple landing techniques are applicable to any and all aircraft with that configuration. The Luscombe Sedan comes to mind now, and bonus points to those who know that story.

I do think The500man's comment is the best in the thread - a tail wheel endorsement is a largely meaningless scribble in a pilot's log book. What's actually required is to learn to fly each individual aircraft as it comes into your experience. You don't actually learn by following a syllabus created by somebody else anticipating an experience base different than your own, or by accumulating scribbles in log books.

Desert185 - I sure agree about loaning your stuff. After you've learned to operate it, the risk of breaking it is much reduced. Why tempt fate by letting somebody else go through that cycle with your stuff?!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

"Tail Heaviness" in terms of physically lifting the tail doesn't say much about the aircraft in the air. All it says is that its a heavy aircraft, and that possibly the main gear is relatively far forward of the C.G. The Helio Courier comes to mind


About fifteen years ago I converted my Cessna 150 Aerobat to a Texas Taildragger with the long gear on it.

That sucker sure was tail heavy due to how far forward the main wheels were.

The biggest problem with such a configuration is controlling yaw during take off and landing, but it did what I wanted it to do, it made for a good little tail wheel trainer because it was demanding on the runway. :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

I once flew a tailwheel converted C 150. It had the original tube main gear relocated and a POS Maule tailwheel and the ground handling was the nastiest I have ever experienced.

Cessna made a wonderful two place taildragger......Its called the C 120/140 :ok:

I personally don't see the point of the C 150 taildragger conversion :confused:

[IFMU]

One of my neighbors has a C150 converted to tailwheel. It is an early one that has the flat spring gear. She likes it. Says the biggest gain is the real flaps. They also own a 140 and have restored a bunch of 120/140's.
Bryan

[Big Pistons Forever]

One of my neighbors has a C150 converted to tailwheel. It is an early one that has the flat spring gear. She likes it. Says the biggest gain is the real flaps.


Personally I have never missed the big flaps on the C 120/140 because it slips so well.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Let me share some background facts here.

When I was in the flight training business I was looking for a dual purpose inexpensive trainer, I had a Cessna 150 Aerobat and looked at it and decided to convert it to a tail wheel machine, after much research I bought the Texas Taildragger kit and STC because I was aware of the problems using the original main gear.

When I finished the conversion I was very pleased with the results and for me it was worth the cost of the conversion.

I learned to fly on a Cessna 140 and am very familiar with its handling qualities.

The Aerobat with the long gear handled almost the same as the Cessna140 except it was a bit more demanding in yaw on the ground.

It was about half way between a Citabria and a Pitts for ground handling so for my needs at the time it was a very good choice.

Cost wise it served the purpose I needed, I would have preferred a Fleet Canuck because in my opinion it is the best little tail wheel trainer I have ever flown.......but.......I needed an airplane that was certified under the aerobatic category and sadly the Fleet Canuck is not.

I sold it some years ago to a friend and he loves the thing. :ok::ok::ok:

[djpil]

Of course, it is quite logical to require me to train a person in all aspects of tail-wheel operations to gain the required tail-wheel endorsement so that the pilot may then go off and fly any tail-wheel aeroplane he/she is legally entitled to.

CASA's new Part 61 supposedly being implemented in September will probably (I don't know as the Manual of Standards is only a draft) require three pointers as well as wheelers.
Land tail wheel aeroplane
 Selects and identifies aiming point.
 Lands aeroplane at a controlled rate of descent, aligned with and above the
runway centreline (tail wheel within 2 metres of centreline), within a specified
area (±400ft/120 metres for PPL, ±200ft/60 metres for CPL) beyond a
nominated touchdown point, without drift, maintaining directional control, and
stops within the available runway length.
 Minimises and controls ballooning and bouncing.
 Lands aeroplane in the following profiles:
o main wheels and tail wheel simultaneously (three-point landing)
o wheel landing (main wheels only on touchdown)
o flapless landing
 Performs after-landing checks in accordance with approved checklist. (The standard to execute short take-off and landing is much more exciting but that is not the topic of this thread.)

Interestingly, the set of notes for training in the Decathlon that was developed by some-one back in the late '70s and used by many local flying schools to the present day says don't do wheelers in it.

So, when the new rules are implemented I will follow them, of course, however I will recommend that pilots go elsewhere to get a tail-wheel endorsement then get back to me for aerobatics and spinning plus learn to land the Decathlon. Rather than waste lots of $ doing circuits in the Decathlon they will be able to get a much cheaper tail-wheel endorsement per the new regs on a C140 or something.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Interestingly, the set of notes for training in the Decathlon that was developed by some-one back in the late '70s and used by many local flying schools to the present day says don't do wheelers in it.

Why would they not wheel land a Decathlon?

[djpil]

I was given these notes when I first flew a Decathlon in the late '70s.
Wheel landings are NOT recommended for the Decathlon due to the increased risk of striking the propeller on the ground.I am sure that we both agree, Chuck, on the silliness of that reason - I guess that some-one bent a Decathlon in the early days by bouncing and bouncing and bouncing .... and the boss said don't do wheelers so it has remained as tribal knowledge ever since.

Up to the early '70s in Aus we had endorsements on individual types and I had previously flown Austers but was not taught wheelers on them either.
I got my CPL/instructor rating late in life (a corrupt life mainly flying things like the Pitts) then bought a Decathlon. CASA got rid of the old silly simple Aus-specific flight manuals and people then started to look at the FAA approved flight manual.
Still quite a few schools here using Decathlons and their instructors don't even know how to do wheelers.

As I said, if/when it is mandated that I teach wheelers for a tailwheel endorsement in a Decathlon I will comply but I will tell the punters beforehand that it is the most expensive way to achieve their objective.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am sure that we both agree, Chuck, on the silliness of that reason - I guess that some-one bent a Decathlon in the early days by bouncing and bouncing and bouncing .... and the boss said don't do wheelers so it has remained as tribal knowledge ever since.

The abysmal stupidity of some of these decisions truly stretches the outer reaches of understanding.

Using that thought process why not just ban all flying.

The Decathlon is one of the most benign tail wheel airplanes ever certified for flight, if a training pilot can't wheel land one maybe they should get further flight training and once they can fly the Decathlon maybe try teaching again.

[djpil]

The Super Decathlon is quite a high workload in the circuit for a fresh PPL and the dual rate is about double that of a Eurofox locally. In my opinion, a Citabria is much better for tail-wheel training and still quite a bit cheaper than a Super Decathlon.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The Super Decathlon is quite a high workload in the circuit for a fresh PPL

My comments were aimed at pilots giving instruction on the Decathlon not fresh PPL's. Unless of course the check pilots that can't wheel land the Decathlon are fresh PPL's in which case someone should have a closer look at their check out policies.

The Decathlon is a very easy airplane to land using both three point and wheel landing methods. Period. :ugh::ugh:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've quite a bit of experience in Citabrias having had them available as club aeroplanes, and then part owning one for a while. I know the Decathlon is more capable, but it's basically the same airframe isn't it? Is the Decathlon much different to fly, or is it just VP prop etc?

[djpil]

The wing is very different - "airfoil section nearly symmetrical".

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I used to fly a Super Decathlon that belonged to Wings Over Holland and as far as landing goes the gear was much softer than a Citabtia and prone to bouncing if you did not touch down smoothly doing wheel landings....but ...it was easy to land using either method....and it was a lot more expensive as it had inverted fuel etc for aerobatics.

I just remembered I used to fly a Citabria fitted out for aerial application and it had more room inside than a Super Cub...It did nice wheel landings which made it easier to land on narrow farm roads etc.

[squawking 7700]

The POH for the Decathlon CS I flew specifically said to three point it - crosswinds weren't a problem with big ailerons (with spades), rudder and elevator there was always plenty of control authority.

Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind - two pointing with the into wind wheel and tailwheel first works as well on most types, in fact for some - Robin 221, Jodel, Emeraude - it's the recommended way.

And do wheeler landings reduce the overall landing distance?


7700

[Chuck Ellsworth]

And do wheeler landings reduce the overall landing distance?

That depends on the type of airplane.

From my own experience flying tail wheel airplanes the best example I can think of is the DC3.

If I wanted to really land it short I found wheeling it on at minimum airspeed and once on the ground / runway use forward pressure on the elevators to increase weight on the wheels allowed for maximum braking and thus a short landing.

I never managed to get one stopped in the same distance when three pointing it.



Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind

The advantage is directional control is better due to higher airspeed just prior to and at touchdown allowing for better control in case a go around becomes the best choice.

Conversely should directional control be lost at the stall or after the stall you have to accelerate back to flying speed to reject the landing...

[Big Pistons Forever]

And do wheeler landings reduce the overall landing distance?




Since most GA aircraft need more runway to takeoff than to land I don't think it matters, although I think for your average Citabria type, plopping it on 3 point and then standing on the brakes will give the shortest distance.

But all of them will stop off a normal landing, 3 point or wheel landing in well less than the length of most runways will little to no braking so I don't think the length of the landing roll is going to dictate the type of landing in very many instances.

Personally I almost always 3 point the light taildraggers (Cubs,Citabrias, C 140/170 etc) and wheel the heavy ones like the Twin Beech.

[Armchairflyer]

Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind.The advantage is directional control is better due to higher airspeed just prior to and at touchdown allowing for better control in case a go around becomes the best choice.ACK, but wouldn't make this the plane even more vulnerable to loss of directional control later in the landing roll when speed decays, compared to already having the rear wheel on the ground, especially in types with a steerable tail wheel (like for instance the Citabria and probably the Decathlon, too)?