Taildragger three point vs wheel landings - Cultural?

[9 lives]

I was chatting with a learned colleague today, and he mentioned that US pilots tend to wheel land, and UK pilots tend to three point (with Canadians inevitably stuck in between).

He went on to say that typically US taildragger pilots were former military and the larger military taildraggers are more commonly wheel landed. Where UK taildragger pilots are typically more smaller plane pilots, an those are more commonly three pointed.

I had not considered this before, and I'm not sure I buy in..... any thoughts?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Interesting question.

So I will offer my thoughts and my preference.

I learned on light tail wheel trainers and went to Ag flying on Cubs, Stearman's and Pawnees.

We used a lot of farmers fields with narrow roads and lots of rural gravel roads so wheel landing gave the best view of the road and better braking by lowering the nose to load the wheels.

Then I moved on the Beech 18 ( around a thousand hours on them. ) and then the DC3 ( around five thousand hours on them. ) so wheel landings became the norm.

For sure x/wind landings are easier wheel landing any tail wheel airplane I have ever flown and I just feel more comfortable wheel landing anyhow....so that is how I usually land all tail wheel airplanes...except the Pitts Special which I find is easier to three point.

[piperboy84]

Chuck I've got about 500 hours in Maules, both from experience and advice from Ray Maule I always 3 point it even in strong x-winds, to the point I can't remember the last time I wheeled it in and would probably make an ass of it if I tried.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Piperboy.

These discussions are meant for each of us to relate our own personal thoughts on flying.

There is no one size fits all in flying.

We are safest when we use techniques that work best for each of us.

Of course there are some techniques that will work best for a given airplane and the situation at the time, but nothing is cast in stone. :ok:

[India Four Two]

I can't remember the last time I wheeled it in and would probably make an ass of it if I tried.

That certainly applies to me. I was taught to three-point Chipmunks in the UK and almost all my tailwheel landings while glider towing in Canada have been three-pointers, including landings at the demonstrated cross-wind limit.

This year, I've rejoined my gliding club after an eight year absence overseas. There is now a new policy to do "low energy" tail-down wheel landings. This is in order to reduce the number of tailwheel spring failures that have been occurring, because the Scout has a tendency to touch down on the tail wheel first, when three-pointing.

I'm having a terrible time with this new technique. I must look like a beginning tail wheel pilot!

[gasax]

I think StepTurn's observation is generally correct.

Certainly flying in the US instructors are surprised by my normal (UK) desire to three point.

But some of that comes from a fair amount of Auster flying. An aircraft which will happily wheel onto tarmac - but then has no brakes worth talking about! On grass, wheeling it is a just an opportunity to bounce all over the place.

My Emeraude would do either equally well and for strong cross winds was generally much better if wheeled on. You would lose a bit of directional control as the tail lowered, but by then the speed was low enough it did not really matter.

[S-Works]

Use the technique for the aircraft you are in.

I fly a tailwheel twin turbine for a living and it's always wheeled on never three pointed. Chipmunk I wheel on, Auster generally three point.

You should not have a dogmatic approach, adapt to the conditions and use the technique that best suits the type.

[A and C]

As Bose-X said it should depend on the type of aircraft you are flying, for instance if you try to three point a DH rapide you will drop a wing due to tip stall and wreck the aircraft so that type you have to wheel on.

The Extra 300 is an aircraft that can be three pointed without a problem in the touchdown but if you are flying a mid wing extra you can see three tenths of naff all ahead in the tail down attitude.

The Chipmunk is just happy to do whatever you want but like the Extra the view is a bit limited if you three point it when flown from the from the back.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I was first taught 3-pointers and later taught myself wheel landings. The Chippy is happy either way, though 3-point was my default. Citabria liked 3-point better than wheel probably because of it soft sprung gear. Cub OK either way.

I generally reserved wheel landings for strong wind days with consequent low ground speed on landing so the faster touch down wasn't a problem on short strips. And you could come to a stop with the tail still up, which was fun!

[shortstripper]

I do both depending on a/c and conditions.

I wonder if it's something to do with most tailwheel flying in the UK is from grass strips rather than airports with long concrete runways? I've not been to the USA but get the impression that most "on airfield" flying is conducted from decent long runways which are often best "wheeled" on?

SS

[The Ancient Geek]

One clue is landing speed.
3 point landings imply low speed and high AOA. The aircraft is effectively stalled just above the ground. Fine for STOL types.
Higher performance types need to be wheeled on at higher speeds because they can have very poor low speed handling. The Mosquito was noted for being particularly evil at low speeds.

[FleetFlyer]

I mostly fly a Luscombe and find myself wheeling it on unless the runway is particularly bumpy. The only reason is that I think it looks cooler.

[Echo Romeo]

I mostly 3 point my Beagle A61 Terrier, but I can, and have wheeled it on quite a few occasions. It feels much easier and more natural to 3 point though, in any wind conditions.

[Maoraigh1]

If a DR1050 mainwheel touches the ground first I wheel land. Otherwise I 3-point.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was chatting with a learned colleague today, and he mentioned that US pilots tend to wheel land, and UK pilots tend to three point (with Canadians inevitably stuck in between).



I can't say I have ever noticed any general bias toward wheel landings on the part of US pilots and my experience with 2 UK pilots was 50/50. Flying the Citabria; one almost always thee pointed and the other almost always wheeled it on.

When teaching the tailwheel conversion I always start with three point and only go to the wheel landing when those have been mastered. Personally I tend to 3 point the small taildraggers and wheel land the bigger ones with the cross over at about C 185 size.

[Flying Lawyer]

Big Pistons Forever..... start with three point and only go to the wheel landing when those have been mastered
Agreed. :ok:


---

My preference -
Tiger Moth - 3 point on grass, tail low on hard runways.
Stampe - 3 point.
Chipmunk - 3 point unless very strong x/wind.
Harvard/Texan - as Chipmunk.
Beech 18 - always wheel. (Never flown it solo)

[N-Jacko]

On prepared runways, my Maule seems happy to do either, or both...

On rivers and lakes, tail-up is (allegedly) better than 3-point. Ditto for forward visibility to negotiate rocks, logs, badger setts and cow pats.

In the Alps, some folks park the back wheel first - which may be another way of saying that a D140's main gear is a tad short.

And then, some go to the other extreme:
jridt56WzdY

[9 lives]

Wow, good video to keep in the back of your mind!

Beautiful scenery! I don't know what was behind the videographer, but I'm thinking it was not a fully equipped maintenance base, ready to change an engine and prop...

[piperboy84]

He did keep it dead straight though

[N-Jacko]

It's a nice spot - where Sophie Marceau and Pierce Brosnan were filmed indulging in some traditional French winter (and mountain refuge) sports for the Bond movie, "The world is not enough": Lien4 (http://www.refuge-mayeres.com/m4.html)

As for maintenance, one shouldn't believe half of what is written on PPRuNe, but one story is that "sierra deux" was fitted with another prop and flew back to base...

[Maoraigh1]

DR1050 manual says tail wheel should touch first. Maybe same for D140.

[9 lives]

DR1050 manual says tail wheel should touch first.

...and after the prop touches too?

[megan]

Can't speak from personal experience, but have read that certain types are not conducive to three pointing due wing drop at the stall - any of the De havillands with pointy wing tips (Comet Racer, Dragon Rapide), and even the venerable DC-3. Perhaps Chuck can expand on the latter.

[Vilters]

I landed my Jodel D-120 in three-point on grass.

On concrete, I preferred the wheel it on in a tail down configuration, then push forward to keep it level and let it roll out till the tail came down.
This gave a little more speed and control during the flare and roll out.

In a D-120 the brakes are odd.
You have to release the rudder padals to go to the brake pedals.
A "foot danse" that could be "tricky" in X-wind conditions.

I sold my D-120, and 2 weeks later the new owner put it on its nose on a grass field.
Man, I was so angry, because I loved that little plane that had taken me all over Europe. Best bang for the buck I ever had, and with 120 liters of fuel a nice cruise speed and range too.

[Flyingmac]

I prefer to wheel the Jodel onto hard, 3 point onto grass. Works for me.


I wheel the Cub on, regardless of surface, unless it's boggy.

[9 lives]

I was trained in the turbine DC3 by Basler's training pilot, who is a magnificent instructor (cool and relaxed). I was trained to always wheel land it. We did many stalls in that aircraft, and yes, it was a wing drop which I would rather avoid close to the ground. I doubt you'd get it that stalled during a landing anyway, but it wheel lands so nicely, that seems to be the way to go.

My flying boat also responds very nicely to being wheel landed, which no one taught me, I just figured out on my own after fighting to make three point landings seem graceful, and loosing!

[9 lives]

I have been flying my friend's 172 taildragger recently. After trying both three pointing it, then wheel landing, I certainly find that wheel landing results in consistently nicer landings.

One of my experienced pilot friends is passionate that taildraggers should be three pointed. Another learned friend tells me that you'll get better landings by wheel landing, but you must be more precise. That seems to be my experience too...

I'm really liking that I can prevent any bouncing by lifting the tail once the mains are on, and reducing the AoA of the wing. I also like that the tail wheel, when it finally contacts, might be going 20 MPH more slowly - less wear and tear!

I have his 180 HP PA-18 type amateur built to fly next, so I'll be trying both ways with it too...

Is there any passion here, one way or the other?

[ehwatezedoing]

I was trained in the turbine DC3 by Basler's training pilot, who is a magnificent instructor (cool and relaxed). I was trained to always wheel land it.

Same! You must be talking about Clare :ok:
I also flew Beech 18 (1000hrs) which I always wheel landed too.

As said previously is should depend on the aircraft type.
Also I've heard that back in the time when the French Air Force had B-18, they were taught to 3 point them...Always!
I think I would have felt like dancing on top of a needle trying it.

[India Four Two]

I also like that the tail wheel, when it finally contacts, might be going 20 MPH more slowly - less wear and tear!


After several thousand three-point landings, I have been required to switch to wheel landings. The Bellanca Scout has a tendency to land tailwheel first when three-pointing and when doing at least five landings an hour while glider towing, broken springs are a fairly regular occurrence.

So the CTP at my gliding club has decreed that we should do "low-energy wheel landings" - that is hold off until nearly the three-point attitude, wait for the mains to touch and then quickly move the stick forward to plant the mains and raise the tail, at the same time dumping the flaps.

It took me quite a while to get the hang of it - I wasn't being aggressive enough with the stick movement and was bouncing all over the place. It feels completely unnatural and goes against everything I was taught.

My roll outs are much longer than before. I still prefer three-pointers. ;)

[India Four Two]

Talking of three-pointers, mauld posted this lovely video on AH&N, of three Mustangs that ends with a textbook three-point landing:

Uk4-281b5wg

[ZeBedie]

Is it not the case that some types will stall and drop a wing before you can get them into a 3 point attitude?

[9 lives]

I have heard some pilots state that if you three point, you have the tailwheel on the surface to help you maintain directional control. I was never quite sure this was the case. Yesterday, I found more evidence to support my belief that the rudder is actually the much more effective means then the tailwheel. I have installed an MT reversing propeller on my taildragger. In getting used to it, I'm getting more comfortable applying lots of reverse thrust in the latter stage of the ground roll (airspeed and RPM sensors prevent application of reverse just after touchdown - as it should be.

What I found was that with the tailwheel nicely planted, the use of lots of reverse "stole" the airflow from the tail, and the rudder suddenly became very ineffective. Even though the tailwheel was nicely down, steering was very demanding at the moment the reverse had effect. I selected forward again, and the rudder was effective.

With this added insight, I further believe that it does not improve steering to have the tailwheel on the runway, if there is still enough airflow over the rudder to make it effective. I have found in all taildraggers I have flown, that if I have enough elevator available to hold the tailwheel off, I also have enough rudder control to steer.

[foxmoth]

I have always known how to do both and teach both, generally I three point but use wheelers in crossswinds and gusty conditions, interesting with the RV, taught both on the 8 with no problem, when we got the 7 I initially found it was difficult to wheel on, this was the case until we did a 50hr check and pumped the tyres to the correct pressure, once that was done the 7 was fine to wheel on, so definitely a case of knowing your aircraft!

Reading Steps remarks about keeping the tail up, I always understood that the main point of keeping the tail up was to keep the airflow over the rudder as long as possible, once you run out of down elevator, that is when you also lose the airflow over the rudder and is when you need the tail on the ground with stick back. Not sure about reverse thrust though, never really seen it on a single!

[pulse1]

Step Turn,

Surely, when you apply reverse thrust in a single engine aircraft the centre of backward thrust is right at the front of the aircraft. This must add hugely to the directional instability already produced by having the CG behind the main wheels. I am not surprised that you found directional control difficult.

[9 lives]

centre of backward thrust is right at the front of the aircraft.

This was the case with the SM1019 I used to fly, so I did not go hard into reverse with it. It was skitterish enough without aggravating it. My taildragger has the engine and tractor prop up behind your head, so its pretty close to the C of G, and does not directly affect directional control. (It does affect pitch a little though).

[Colibri49]

When flying the Harvard I was equally comfortable to do either style of landing, while I preferred 3 pointers in the Cub. But when flying a type such as a Europa mono-wheel with no differential brakes and only a steerable tailwheel, there is no choice other than to get the tailwheel down simultaneously with the main, especially in a crosswind.

[9 lives]

But when flying a type such as a Europa mono-wheel with no differential brakes and only a steerable tailwheel, there is no choice other than to get the tailwheel down simultaneously with the main, especially in a crosswind.

I'm not familiar with this type, does it have a rudder? For myself, the use of brakes for directional control at speed on the runway is mostly for an "oh my gosh, I'm about to loose it" situation, I never routinely use them to keep straight. Perhaps it's just the types I fly...

[Colibri49]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0et96eefLM


It has a really effective rudder, as also are the other surfaces powerful and effective. But the stated crosswind limit is 15 knots, which should be well respected. Many pilots of this type of aircraft won't risk a crosswind component in double figures and several have converted their aircraft to tricycle configuration.


The distance between the mono main-wheel and the steerable tailwheel is short in the early version, which can result in quick excursions left or right during the landing roll as the speed reduces and the rudder loses effectiveness.


Even the later models with extended tailwheels only partially solved the problem of directional instability on landing. Even so, many mono-wheel examples are to be found and those who feel that they have mastered such quirkiness are very happy with the extra performance and load carrying capability afforded by the mono.


Gliders use a similar undercarriage arrangement, but their long wings have extra inertia which helps with straightness on landing.

[9 lives]

The distance between the mono main-wheel and the steerable tailwheel is short in the early version, which can result in quick excursions left or right during the landing roll as the speed reduces and the rudder loses effectiveness.

Yes, this I can imagine. As speed slows, something effective must take over from the rudder for steering. As I think more about this topic, I experiment with different planes I fly. My C 150 can be taxiied at slow speed with the nosewheel off the ground. In doing so, steering is just fine, though it is only the rudder providing that control. Similarly, the 182 amphibian I fly can be fast taxiied rudder only with sufficient airflow over the rudder. You can really feel the difference while taxiing or rolling out from landing, when the plane slows, and you throttle to idle. without the speed or prop wash, suddenly the rudder is ineffective. The DC-3 does not have tailwheel steering, and it's brakes are not really fast acting enough for precise steering, without lurching and leaving rubber on the runway. When I was trained on it, I was taught to just really focus on making the rudder work effectively as much as possible.

But it takes me back to my preference for wheel landing when the type and configuration will allow it, knowing that the tailwheel steering is doing little anyway at any speed at which the tail can be held off.

[Wageslave]

The Tiger Club impressed on me the importance of wheeling-on both the Tiger Moth and the Stampe if there was any crosswind at all, but that it was a little less important with the Stampe due to its tailwheel against the Tiger's skid.

The rationale was to use the rudder to maintain positive control in yaw throughout the landing and subsequent ground run in order to avoid groundlooping. Taildraggers were designed when all airfields were aerodromes and you always landed into wind. Then three pointing was the norm. As soon as fixed runway directions forced out of wind landings to become common wheeling on had to be introduced as a normal procedure.

My Stearman instructor said much the same.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I always understood that the main point of keeping the tail up was to keep the airflow over the rudder as long as possible

That and the 'fun factor'. In a reasonable head wind in the Chippy I liked to come to stop with the tail still up, if possible. :O

I-42, yes, a very positive forward stick movement is required to 'pin' the aeroplane on the mains in a wheeler touchdown. Seems a bit odd at first after doing 3-pointers, but you soon get used to it.

[India Four Two]

Seems a bit odd at first after doing 3-pointers, but you soon get used to it. I've got used to it, but it will always seem odd!

As soon as fixed runway directions forced out of wind landings to become common wheeling on had to be introduced as a normal procedure.I've never had any problems three-pointing a Scout up to the demonstrated cross-wind value of 17 kts. Well, it's actually a two-pointer, but you know what I mean. ;)

[barit1]

Cultural? Well, yes, I'd rather spend my shekels on hamburgers and fries rather than tires (oops, tYres) and brakes. Ergo the slower touchdown of a 3-pointer is my default landing.