Flown a Taildragger

[Jetwhine]

I'm curious ... For those of you who took the time to check out in a taildragger, do you think learning to handle one of these tricky little devils has made you a better pilot? Tell me why.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1096x894/citabria_50a95f54b058849f9cbcad38d46c0909fdc1710a.png

[megan]

Like we folk, all aircraft have their very own unique character, some are pussy cats, some are tigers, it matters not if it has a nose or tail wheel. Cessna introduced the nose wheel in order to open up the market to attract the less skilled and marketing stressed how easy they were to land, which their tail wheel products with the spring steel legs were anything but for the less skilled. Learnt to fly in a Chipmunk, an extreme pussy cat, but not when it came to spinning. With only double figures in the log book then checked out in an Auster, when solo one day trying to land in very benign conditions I did circuit after circuit trying to land and was coming to the conclusion that the only way to arrive at a meeting of plane and earth would be running out of fuel or getting shot down. Never had so much trouble in all my life. Shortly after checked out in a Tiger Moth, a whole new lesson in aircraft handling, no brakes, effects taxiing in wind, necessity of having wing walkers at times, never had any problems though. Most DC-3 operation manuals dictated that three point landings were not to be made, the issue being the pointed wing tips were given to stalling with resulting uncontrollable roll leading to an accident, those with the necessary skill and judgement were able to show that they could be three pointed. All tail wheelers have a propensity to ground loop, some more than others, and is an area where handling finesse separates the men from the boys, crosswind operations open up a whole new area where you can demonstrate your ground loop skills, or avoidance of. Give it a go, it will open up a new area of aviating enjoyment for you.

[Kemble Pitts]

Having learn't to fly on Tiger Moths I don't have first hand experience of going from nose-wheel to tailwheel; just the other way!

However, that won't stop me giving you an opinion. Ground handling is pretty much the only difference (obviously) between them and, as Megan says, they are all different. We can generalise and say that take-off and landing in a tailwheel aircraft requires more thought and more finesse than a nose-wheel aircraft. You can 'arrive' in a C172 and make it look not too bad. If you 'arrive' in most tailwheel aircraft, at best it will provide entertainment (to you and the locals), at worst break the aeroplane.

I'd encourage you to do a tailwheel convex, your judgement and handling skills will improve, as will your levels of satisfaction and enjoyment. Also it'll give you access to a lot of interesting aeroplanes, especially vintage types - if that is your 'bag'.

One point to keep in mind, on a windy day a tailwheel flight is not over until the hangar doors are shut.

[S-Works]

There is not that much difference in reality. It's just differences that you adjust to just like any new skill. Well over half of my hours are in tailwheel aircraft. I fly a twin turbine tailwheel for a job with several thousands hours in it. Learn to look at the Wind Sock and understand what its actually telling you and feel for feedback from the aircraft rather than just expecting to bang it on and get away with it and you will be fine. In the air they are just like any other aircraft.

[Pilot DAR]

What Megan said...

In terms of flying, the plane is the same, this includes crosswind handing. I will even say that in terms of allowing the main wheels to contact the surface during landings, taildraggers are very similar to tricycles - because you're still flying as far as the plane knows - the rudder is still ruddering. The problems seem to come when pilots give up flying taildraggers much too early int he landing. Yes, I reluctantly agree that you can give up flying a tricycle shortly after touching the mains, and probably get away with it. You must fly a taildragger until it has stopped - seriously! In truth, I fly my tricycle to the parking spot too, but that's just my sense of discipline.

Tricycle planes make new pilots lazy on the pedals - you really don't need to use them much, and if you're sloppy, the plane will tolerate it. As long as a taildragger has the tailwheel held off the surface, and you fly it with average pilot skill, you'll be fine. So, wheel landings! When training tricycle pilots to fly taildragger, I notice with alarm that the pilots seem to wrongly think that as soon as they can get the tailwheel on the surface, they don't have to worry about steering any more - no, that's when the work begins! The tailwheel steers the plane at taxi speeds, otherwise it's the rudder doing the steering, so that's what you must use. If you are holding the tail off, your mind will realize that you are still flying the plane.

Yes, when I was trained to fly the DC-3, I accidentally three pointed it. I felt the instructor's hand come up behind mine on the power levers, and push. As he calmly said "we don't three point DC-3's", I noticed the torque at the top of the red, as I realized he had turned my landing into a touch and go. With that gem of knowledge, I transitioned to wheel landing all taildraggers I flew. The Tiger Moth was one of the few I still three pointed, just 'cause it seemed happy landing that way, and I did not become accustomed enough to the view to play with wheel landings - I didn't fly them a lot. If I have another opportunity in a Moth, I would experiment with wheel landings for fun.

The vital thing about landing a taildragger is that the plane must absolutely be restrained from heading changes on the runway. It must be held right on the centerline. wandering laterally even a couple of feet will result in over controlling, and a ground loop. Happily for my discipline, my taildragger's wing tip floats would strike my runway lights were I to be five feet laterally off the centerline either way. So, not wanting to crunch either, I keep it on the centerline, and everything works as intended.

If you want to ease your transition to flying taildragger, the most important thing is to find a very experienced instructor to mentor you. Then, focus your mind on flying with precision. Try to fly from grass if you can. Look for a day with a 3- 5 knot 30 to 45 degree crosswind from the left (most pilots reference from the left better than the right when in the flare). You want that crosswind for your practice, the plane can handle it just fine, so should you - any taildragger you'll find to fly will handle 10 knots direct crosswind, so 5 knots at 30 to 45 degrees is well within the capacity for good control. You want it, because as you practice your wheel landings. Now you have the conditions, spread out the challenge of landing longer along the runway, so it's not all happening at once. Things go bad when you're task saturated. so trting to get three wheels onto the surface nicely at one time is three times the effort as trying to place one - task saturation. Instead, your very gentle crosswind will allow you to place the upwind main wheel on the surface first, and pause while you hold it there. Upwind main down, apply a little aileron to hold it there, if doing so lifts the downwind mainwheel a little higher off the surface for a few seconds, no problem. Hold the aileron that way (until you turn off the runway), as the other main will settle on as the plane slows - no task for you, less task saturation. Now, as the other main nicely settles on, apply a slight check forward on the elevator to delay the tailwheel touching, while meticulously hoping the plane on the centerline with the rudder - no sloppiness tolerated. As the plane slows, and you sense the tail settling, apply more stick forward to hold it off. Ideally, the tail will gently settle on with you holding the elevator full nose down. Important note: NO use of wheel brakes until you're holding full UP elevator.

You have eased your effort, by spreading the task of landing further along the runway, so it's not all happening in a blur at once. The bonus of the wheel landing will be that once you have the main wheels planted on the runway, and you've raised the tail a little (while NOT touching the brakes!!!), you have reduced the angle of attack, and you can hold it there as you slow. It's pretty well impossible to bounce a landing when you reduce the angle of attack as the plane slows - a lot of the lift jut went away! And, with the tail up, you have a much better view out the windshield.

Yes, being a proficient taildragger pilot will generally improve your flying skills, particularly in multi engine planes. You'll use the pedals in flight! (Important in the case of an engine failure in a twin). While I was flight testing a modified Twin Otter (yes, it's a tricycle), the very experienced training pilot right seat said to me: "You fly taildragger a lot, don't you...?". "well, yes..." I replied, "what makes you think so...?". "Because you use the pedals." was his reply. I felt complimented....

On the obverse, while overseeing a formal test pilot from the "authority" flying a modified Cessna Skymaster (yes, another tricycle), I found that he was very poor in using the pedals. The result was that during his slow flight, the plane kept breaking into incipient spins, as he did not control speed well enough to prevent a stall, and then did not keep the ball centered to prevent a spin. No harm done, but I finished the flying for him to assure that the actually compliance of the plane's handling was actually demonstrated! I inquired, he was a jet pilot, who had never flown a taildragger. I'm sure he was a fine jet pilot. We weren't flying a jet.

Go fly taildragger!

[rusty sparrow]

Flying a taildragger has made me a better and more satisfied pilot. It also means that I can afford to fly, as a lot of self maintained permit aircraft are tailwheel, and of course most of the WW2 fighters should I ever get a chance to fly one. Not flown a Tiger Moth except for a demo flight but have had the fun of taxying without brakes and steerable tailwheel, sometimes with a wing walker, when flying the classic Jodel D9. That use to cost me around £10 per hour just a couple of years ago.

[Maoraigh1]

If you convert to tailwheel on grass, get some hard runway instruction. It's often much more difficult.
(I learned on a modified Tiger Moth taildragger, converted to a tailwheel Chipmunk, then to a C150 nosewheel. Most of my hours are Jodel DR1050 on hard runways.)

[Piper.Classique]

How does it go? Real taildraggers fly the pilots? Err, no. Plenty of people have learned on conventional gear. It makes them better at fully held off landings and ground handling. Which is good. Pilot DAR has a good take on this. Me, I just like Cubs. And my half of an ST 87. And my M14. It's all good. Fly the best you can, whatever it is. Ok, keep the ball in the middle. Which works on everything, except in a sideslip.

[alland2012]

I did my taildragger add on in a Cub and a Stearman PT17. Until them I had been bumbling happily around the skies in either a C172 or PA28. I can honestly say working on my taildragger endorsement made me realise just how lazy I'd become when it came to flying the aircraft all the way to parking.
I would encourage any pilot to do a taildragger course even if they don't intend to own one.
And besides anything else they are bloomin good fun ! :ok:

[BoeingBoy]

It should be a mandatory part of the PPL syllabus as far as I'm concerned. It sharpens your landing technique and frankly will improve your nose wheel landings too.
I also concur that learning to fly tailwheels on grass is a lot easier than doing so on concrete so before solo use make sure you're competent on both.

[lederhosen]

I went solo on a Rollason Condor (ancient taildragger even in the seventies) and did my GFT a small number of hours later on a C152 (when the Condor broke down) which was probably much simpler than the other way around. Bit like going from Boeing to Airbus as I discovered a few decades later. Doing a silver C conversion from gliders was an easier route then and required if I remember correctly eight hours. The owners of the flight school at Sherburn were away on holiday the two weeks this took me with the help of the very competent ex Nimrod CFI of the London University air squadron (who was standing in). They were a bit surprised when I showed up the next week with my licence, which I got over the counter at the CAA in Kingsway on the Friday of week two. I had spent most of the summer instructing at Bicester and flying the Falke motor glider, so it was not down to any unusual ability, just luck and a lack of bureaucracy. The current route from gliding licence via motor glider to UL/LAPL is a welcome move back in this direction.

[LTCTerry]

I only have about ten hours in a J-3, though much of that solo. My instructor said, "be careful not to groundloop…" just as he, uh, groundlooped taxing back after landing.

People are lazy with the rudder unless they have a reason not to be. We teach coordinated flying - aileron and rudder together - so why would you need the rudder on the ground when the wings are level? The reality is that each control has the ability to make the aircraft do what we want.

One of the best lessons I ever had was when a German aerobatic judge said I could use whatever control(s) I needed for the results I wanted. Sometimes rudder makes the nose go up, sometimes you push the stick to make the nose go up. All depends. I've not flown a taildragger since taking up aerobatics, but I think I'd be more confident.

[lederhosen]

Well I have certainly groundlooped a cub. Landed normally and was taxying straight ahead and bang round it went. Ended up more or less in the right direction wondering if I had dreamed it. Never did it in a supercub which I flew a lot more glider towing but maybe I had learned my lesson. Things that don’t kill you make you stronger, as they say.

[Meldrew]

I also did my ppl on a Condor in the early seventies. No one ever said to me “ this is a tail dragger, its much harder to operate than a Tricycle” After passing the ppl tests, I converted onto tricycle undercarriage aircraft, PA28, late I bought a Jodel and flew several hundred hours in it. I ground looped it only once due to complacency as I had not had any problems before.
I am wondering if anyone think that the Condor was more docile as a tail dragger than many other types, as it was quite heavy I seem to remember, compared to say a Cub. Any thoughts?

[pulse1]

The Condor maybe slightly more docile than many tail draggers. I wonder if this is because it is easier to see ahead, over the nose, and therefore you can pick up the dreaded swing much quicker. Having flown Tiger Moths and Condors, and never ground looped either, I think that the quicker you respond to a swing, the easier it is to control. However, I did discover that going from a Tiger Moth to a PA28 can be fun. With only a few hours on the PA28 I was landing in a stiff crosswind and instinctively put on full rudder when she started to swing. I hadn't got used to the direct nose wheel steering of the PA28.

[meleagertoo]

My tailwheel 'conversion' after five years away from f/w was five circuits and a few stalls in a Stearman, five years later exactly the same in a Tiger Moth and three circuits to solo in a Stampe plus some aerobatic work.
One groundloop in a Tiger taxiing at slow walking speed on hard ground.
There's no magic to it, you have tounderstand the dynamics involved, take charge of the aeroplane and fly it accurately as briefed. No doubt at all Cessna-derived paralysis of the feet is a habit some may take time to get over!

Currency on helicopters made all the diference, the footwork is so similar.

[beamer]

Its not rocket science but its not just a couple of hours and 'away you go'. Its a formal course and licence endorsement in the USA whilst in the UK its a conversion to solo standard without anything going into your licence itself.

Before starting a course, grab a copy of THE COMPLEAT TAILDRAGGER PILOT by Harvey Plourde so that you can do some studying before groundschool with your Instructor. Once briefed you should spend some time learning to taxy the aircraft safely because taildraggers can get away from you in even light winds and depending upon type, visibility is probably going to be restricted over the nose.

Some upper air work should be conducted first to look at general handling and sideslip techniques before joining the circuit.

Once you have the knack of a different take-off technique with a couple of extra aspects of propeller handling you will need to master both three-point and wheeler landings which are taught in that order. Training should be given on both hard and grass runways in a variety of wind conditions. Ground handling is particularly important and the task is not complete until the parking brake is applied on shutdown and/or the chocks are in place.

All great fun and a bit of a challenge for those who have only flown tricycle types up to now - its not difficult but it is different !

[Pilot DAR]

Though I generally agree with beamer's good advice, a few items caught my eye...

Upper airwork practice is never a bad idea, however, once you're off the ground, a tail dragger and tricycle plane will fly the same way. There could be minor type differences, but those differences are not landing gear related in flight. I used to fly alternatively a 172 tricycle, and 172 taildragger - in flight, they were identical. If you're going to practice sideslipping, well... you don't need a taildragger to do that! Practice that on whatever you fly, and yes, it's an excellent skill to maintain. An hour ago I delivered a 182RG for it's next use, and for my practice, I flew a practice forced approach, including a hearty sideslip to make it something of a spot forced approach onto the piano keys - even the tricycle 182 RG slipped very nicely! Save your more rare opportunity to fly tailwheel for circuit practice - those are the unique skills to develop.

I accept that three point landings may be taught first, but I accept that with reluctance. Three point landings need not be considered the preference. Though I teach three point, I always emphasize my preference for wheel landings in nearly all situations. The only operation for which I teach three point is for the shortest possible landing run - so really reserved for forced landings. In most taildraggers, if you're landing that short, you may not be taking off from that place. I have never seen an aerodrome runway so short that a GA taildragger had to be three pointed to get it down and stopped there. But yes, a three point landing has the potential to have a shorter ground roll that a wheel landing.

Otherwise, wheel landing offers many advantages: Better visibility, much less likely to bounce, better in cross winds, better if the surface is uncertain, much less wear and tear on tailwheels, and certainly focuses your mind more on the need to fly the plane at least as far as clearing from the runway, if not to the chocks. Although, yes, I was taught three point in the early days, I soon realized the benefits if wheel landing, and noticed that in most cases, it's the norm for larger taildraggers (warbirds).

Don't be deceived into thinking that the tailwheel helps you steer, so get it on early. No, the tailwheel (that tiny, over worked tire) does little to steer the plane compared to the rudder, until the plane is moving so slowly that the rudder losses effectiveness. I have proven this to myself landing my taildragger on the bare ice of a frozen lake, more and more out of the wind, until finally, I was landing 22 knots direct crosswind, with no problem - until I slowed to less than 15MPH or so, then it gently weathercocked, and groundlooped, as the rudder had become ineffective, and the tailwheel had no friction to steer. Keep the tail up, it'll remind you to actually use the rudder!

[Kemble Pitts]

Pilot DAR. Interesting view on wheelers versus three point landings. Not sure I agree (actually i am sure, I don't agree). Both techniques have their place and you can use either, to your prefence, in many situations. However, a tailwheel pilot should be proficient in both as sometimes only one of them will do. For what its worth, for the lighter (and more vintage) aeroplane I suggest that 'proper' pilots have always landed on three points. :)

Your suggestion that wheelers are less prone to bouncing also does not chime fully with my experience. Depending upon the undercarriage arrangement, wheelers can be more prone to bouncing than three pointers, e.g. in a Tiger Moth. On the other hand a Pitts is probably more likely to bounce during a less than perfect three pointer than during a wheeler.

[Maoraigh1]

A three-pointer will have a lower groundspeed at touchdown, therefore less speed to lose. An important advantage in some light tailwheel aircraft, especially in nil wind.

[beamer]

Pilot DAR

The reason why I believe that some upper air work is necessary is straight forward enough.

If a student is undergoing a tailwheel conversion then by definition they will not have piloted that type of aircraft previously. Therefore they will not be familiar with the individual handling characteristics of the aircraft and as such some familiarisation of steep turns and stalls would be beneficial. I think you would agree that in the early stages of learning to land a tailwheel aircraft, mistakes will be made and the old adage of ' if in doubt, go around' is vital. As such some practice of go around handling in various configurations will give both student and instructor confidence before going on to the process of landing the aircraft whichever technique is taught first.

Regarding the sideslip, I have found that it is a technique that is not taught well at PPL level neither is it practiced. It is quite possible to mishandle a sideslip approach, particularly the transition phase, so why not give the student the opportunity to look at the manoeuvre with some altitude to play with below.

I thoroughly agree that the Wheeler landing is under-rated as a technique - some tail wheel pilots are obsessed with the three-pointer despite all the variables that may make it very much the less favourable option.

Obviously every student is different both in terms of experience and capability. It is our job as instructors to formulate a training plan accordingly which covers all the relevant aspects of tailwheel training.

[Pilot DAR]

I certainly agree that if a student is so unfamiliar with a type that upper airwork is justified, than of course, training should never be skipped. If it's the student's first time flying stick, then yes...

As for sideslips, the reality that it is poorly taught is sad, and no excuse. Many taildraggers will require a sideslip to refine all but the most well set up approach. I have never found a type which will not respond well to being slipped, right up to full rudder. The King Air 200 has some odd tendencies, and its type certificate has a special condition in that regard, but an attentive pilot should have no problem. As for any other type, certainly, the student should be taught, then allowed to practice at altitude. Thereafter, as an element of tailwheel training, a sideslip just into the flare should not be concerning. I do not view a sideslip as a risky maneuver in the sense of approach to stall, as the whole point of the sideslip is to create drag to reduce speed, so if you're anywhere near stall speed, entering a sideslip would be pointless unless you're silly high. FWIW, in negotiating with Transport Canada Flight Test staff last December to not have to demonstrate spins in a modified Cessna Grand Caravan, I accepted instead demonstrating stall to the break with 75% power, in a 30 degree bank turn both ways, with one ball out (which was just about full rudder) - so a horrible sideslip, approach to stall. The stall was very benign, as has been my experience testing other smaller types this way.

I have never flown a Pitts, so would defer to those which that experience for their opinion on technique. I agree the the Tiger Moth seems to like either landing technique (or doesn't know the difference!). That said, I've never been formally type trained in the Moth, I just checked myself out when it needed to be test flown post maintenance. Again, I would defer to Tiger Moth experts for the best technique.

But, for the number of worn out tailwheels I have repaired from Cessna 180/185's, PA-18, the 172, and my flying boat, I choose to hold the tailwheel off as long as I can to reduce wear and tear - thus wheel landings. For bounce arresting, once I have both mains planted, I'll lift the tail. The loss of AoA on the wing pretty well assures that it's not going to fly again, so no bounce into the air 'cause it's still flying. If I've hit so hard that it bounces on pure landing gear spring, well, that's pretty embarrassing!

When landing skis in unbroken snow, it is normal to hold the tail off to assure that you have not committed to a landing until you're happy with the snow. If you three point into snow, you may just drop and stop if the snow is deep or crusty. Done that way, you may be calling for many friends with shovels - I've known it to happen! So I'll put one ski down first (usually the left, if the wind permits), and watch and feel what it does, before I even allow the right main to go down, let alone the tail. If the snow is too deep or crusty, and the plane pulls, I'll put on the power and go around, it was flying the whole time. When I was testing the 150HP C150 taildragger on wheel skis, I deliberately landed three point into snow (beside the runway) which I knew to be 18" of loose powder. Snow flew everywhere! Takeoff was not possible, just too much drag, and that was what I expected. I snowstormed out to the runway, and took off on wheels. It has been known that the tail post has been pulled out of PA-18's and Maules on skis, when the plane was three pointed into crusty snow. For landing on very soft grass or sand on tundra tires, I employed the same left wheel first and feel technique, and a few times it saved me from getting stuck, as I felt it pull, and rapidly did a go around. The Tiger Moth I flew on skis had the "Canadian" main landing gear, which was canted forward at a greater angle, to reduce noseovers on skis.

When I was trained in the Turbine DC-3, three points landings were a no no under any circumstances.

So I listen to what the type expert tells me on any given type, and defer to a wheel landing if I have not received any advice.

[Andrew2487]

An excellent idea !
I have about 600 hours tailwheel time and my only groundloop was landing on a hard runway (Leicester, in a gusting 90 degree crosswind).

[Waltzer]

Pilot DAR. Interesting view on wheelers versus three point landings. Not sure I agree (actually i am sure, I don't agree). Both techniques have their place and you can use either, to your prefence, in many situations. However, a tailwheel pilot should be proficient in both as sometimes only one of them will do. For what its worth, for the lighter (and more vintage) aeroplane I suggest that 'proper' pilots have always landed on three points. :)

Your suggestion that wheelers are less prone to bouncing also does not chime fully with my experience. Depending upon the undercarriage arrangement, wheelers can be more prone to bouncing than three pointers, e.g. in a Tiger Moth. On the other hand a Pitts is probably more likely to bounce during a less than perfect three pointer than during a wheeler.

Fairly good breakdown there, however I have to comment on your ‘lighter (and more vintage)‘ statement. Presumably you’re referring to Cubs, Champs, Tigers and the like.
Harvards, Stearman, Cessna 195s are also vintage but are heavyweights in their own right.

Wheelers or 3 points, this discussion is as old as the hills. There are so many dependent factors - type of a/c, loading, length of runway, hard or grass, wet or dry, crosswind, headwind, no wind, the list goes on.

It’s largely down to ability, experience and currency. Personal preference comes in to it a little bit but not much, more so with experience.

Aerodynamics dictate that a wheeler landing means that whilst the tailwheel is in the air and the aircraft is running along on its mains then the wings are developing lift, any rearward movement on the stick is likely to make the aircraft fly again, even if it’s slowing down. The most important thing is to keep feeding the stick forward until the tailwheel touches, try to keep the tailwheel in the air, full forward stick. Once the tailwheel is down the stick can come briskly back.

On the other hand, the aim of a 3 pointer is to land on all 3 wheels, stick hard back and at, or very slightly above, stall speed.
Too fast will result in a bounce and flying again.
Too slow and the a/c will stall above the ground resulting in a sharp drop and a heavy landing (not very graceful).
Both can be corrected with a trickle of power at exactly the right moment. Resist a PIO at all costs, if there is any sign of that, any doubt, power on and go round. Remember that powering up will lower the stall speed and you’ll be flying again, at your landing speed, just above the ground, let the speed build up then climb away.

A pilot, with a bit of experience, will be able to turn a slightly fast 3 pointer into a bit of a tail low wheeler, could be an embarrassment saver.

My personal rules of thumb are:
Tarmac - always a wheeler, runways are generally smooth, you can land at high speed and are better equipped to deal with crosswinds control wise.
Grass - you have a choice, unless it’s a short runway, if that’s the case then ‘drag it in’ as slow as is comfortable and 3 point it.

With all of that said, you won’t be wheeling a Tiger on to a hard runway if it’s got a skid, which goes back to my earlier comment regarding type of aircraft.
And then there’s tarmac crosswinds, that’s a whole different story.

A quick word about ground looping. Once again it’s a physics thing. On a tricycle the CofG is ahead of the main gear - natural tendency to track straight.
On a tailwheel the CofG is behind the main gear - prone to shopping trolley behaviour. Try pushing your wheeled carry on luggage at running speed, you’ll get the idea.

Before I get shot down, I speak as a current taildragging pilot, over 3 decades and multi thousand hours, from Cubs to warbirds.

People may not agree with the above but they are my personal views based on my own experiences.

[Kemble Pitts]

Fairly good breakdown there, however I have to comment on your ‘lighter (and more vintage)‘ statement. Presumably you’re referring to Cubs, Champs, Tigers and the like.
Harvards, Stearman, Cessna 195s are also vintage but are heavyweights in their own right

Well, Tigers, Ryans, Wots, Cubs, Pitts', Jodels, Hornet Moths, Stampes and Harvards actually - but then that is the risk of trying to generalise. As you hint, you fly each to their own strengths and weaknesses. All of them can be three pointed or wheeled on, and you decide depending upon surface, length, wind: and what you might fancy doing at the time!

I've never flown a DC3 but, I've been told (and as Pilot DAR says) you DON'T three point them, also with Dragon Rapides. Conversely a tailwheel Eurofox is happier on three points.

I suppose we could go on...