A question for the tailwheel boys...
Sink The Pink
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: age Frais
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for the tailwheel boys...
I was watching some tailwheel aircraft landing yesterday and they all had a crosswind of about 10 kts to contend with that was directly across the runway.
Some were three point landing ad others were wheeling it on.
In conditions where the cross wind is unavoidable, which method of landing is safer in a tailwheel a/c? It seemed to me that the wheel-it-on method looked more stable.
Some were three point landing ad others were wheeling it on.
In conditions where the cross wind is unavoidable, which method of landing is safer in a tailwheel a/c? It seemed to me that the wheel-it-on method looked more stable.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking the risk of being shot down I normally wheel it on in a crosswind (and teach this for crosswinds) and have never found a great problem even in aircraft that seem to have a reputation as difficult with some people. Having said that, it does depend on the aircraft, and if I check someone out who finds 3 pointers more comfortable I am quite happy to sign them off as long as they are safe.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's going to vary slightly from one aircraft to another. But in general, I would agree that wheeling it on is best in a crosswind or any kind of gusts.
ToryBoy - it is possible to do a 3-point landing with a wing down. You land with the into-wind main wheel and the tailwheel touching down simultaneously, followed by the downwind wheel. (So it's not actually a 3-point landing then, is it?!?) The reason I prefer not to is that the wheel landing allows me to keep the speed up a little bit, and choose the exact point at which I want the wheels to touch... whereas with a 3-point landing, once you've rounded out, there's nothing more you can do to affect the landing except for wait until it reaches the correct attitude and speed. At least, that's what I found in the PA18, which is the only tail-wheel aircraft I have any real experience of which has enough prop clearance to be able to wheel it on.
FFF
--------------
ToryBoy - it is possible to do a 3-point landing with a wing down. You land with the into-wind main wheel and the tailwheel touching down simultaneously, followed by the downwind wheel. (So it's not actually a 3-point landing then, is it?!?) The reason I prefer not to is that the wheel landing allows me to keep the speed up a little bit, and choose the exact point at which I want the wheels to touch... whereas with a 3-point landing, once you've rounded out, there's nothing more you can do to affect the landing except for wait until it reaches the correct attitude and speed. At least, that's what I found in the PA18, which is the only tail-wheel aircraft I have any real experience of which has enough prop clearance to be able to wheel it on.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Herts (yeah yeah!)
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll find a slightly higher speed on the ground when doing a 'wheeler' landing, owing to the intentional lower AoA, this gives you the advantage of greater airflow over the rudder. Directional control on the ground is more important with a taildragger in a crosswind.
Its quite common to complete the final stage of approach with the into wind wing low and then touch down into wind wheel first, allowing the other one to come down as airspeed reduces and control authority reduces.
Three pointers are perfectly acceptable in a crosswind, but it is possible that just as you touchdown in a practically stalled condition any remaining sideways component will start the rather appropriately named 'groundloop' as your centre of gravity overtakes you. This is when you suddenly realise that full rudder isn't doing it for you anymore (Of course at this point you could apply a quick 'burstette' of power, energise the rudder, keep it straight and head in for tea and medals).
Its quite common to complete the final stage of approach with the into wind wing low and then touch down into wind wheel first, allowing the other one to come down as airspeed reduces and control authority reduces.
Three pointers are perfectly acceptable in a crosswind, but it is possible that just as you touchdown in a practically stalled condition any remaining sideways component will start the rather appropriately named 'groundloop' as your centre of gravity overtakes you. This is when you suddenly realise that full rudder isn't doing it for you anymore (Of course at this point you could apply a quick 'burstette' of power, energise the rudder, keep it straight and head in for tea and medals).
The strip I fly from is invariably cross wind to a greater or lesser extent being North-South in orientation. In the Auster I usually do a wing down into wind 3 pointer or try to at least! In the Cub I used to do a tail down wheeler due to it's less effective rudder and lighter weight. Either way, tailwheel steering is a great help as is landing on grass. The ability to dance like Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers is a bonus too 
Shame I dance like a billiard table 
but it does ensure some interesting "arrivals".
Shame I dance like a billiard table but it does ensure some interesting "arrivals".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a 10 knot crosswind in the Chippy I'd go for a wheeler every time for the reasons others have given - mainly more rudder effectiveness due the slightly higher speed but mainly due the fact it's stuck up in the airflow in a wheeler rather than skulking in the disturbed air behind the fuselage in a 3-pointer.
SSD
SSD
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets appproach this form another angle.
When I teach any pilot that has never flown tailwheel aircraft before I do it in this sequence.
(1) Low and high speed taxiing down runway with tail in the air.
(2) When the student has mastered directional control satisfactorily on the runway we go flying and I next teach wheel landings.
(3) When the student is profficient with wheel landings I then teach the three point / stall landings.
Note:
The above is based on the skills needed to safely fly a tailwheel airplane and in the order required.
The above is of course only my method of teaching that is based on over fifty years of tailwheel flying.......And it works.
Chuck
When I teach any pilot that has never flown tailwheel aircraft before I do it in this sequence.
(1) Low and high speed taxiing down runway with tail in the air.
(2) When the student has mastered directional control satisfactorily on the runway we go flying and I next teach wheel landings.
(3) When the student is profficient with wheel landings I then teach the three point / stall landings.
Note:
The above is based on the skills needed to safely fly a tailwheel airplane and in the order required.
The above is of course only my method of teaching that is based on over fifty years of tailwheel flying.......And it works.
Chuck
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My preference is for wheel landings as it provides a greater degree of control and facilitates a wider range of options. You can ride the gusts if you have enough runway and allow the speed to decay slowly whilst keeping the tail in the air and therefore not masked. I would only go for the 3 pointer when the runway was too short to allow the flexibilities described above. With high wing tail draggers the two pointer (into wind wing and tailwheel) can be a good option and as a practice piece I used to run the Luscombe along the runway like that before dropping the other main wheel.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to 3 'ish' point every time, but the most important point in strong crosswinds and low wing loading aircraft like the L4 I fly is to get that into wind wheel down first no matter what. As FFF said that could be tailwheel and mainwheel down together or a tail down wheeler - just get it down and keep in planted as at low speeds none of the controls could stop the wing from coming up if caught be a big gust.
No one has mentioned the approach - I reccomend the wing down method and often add more slip to get the into-wind wing down even further - I think this helps stop drift developing in the few moments before you actually touchdown when you are slowly centralising the controls a little - it works for me anyway!
So to re cap... into-wind wheel down first and make sure you have no drift are the main priorities. Screw up of either of these and you're in for an 'interesting' ride!
Kingy
No one has mentioned the approach - I reccomend the wing down method and often add more slip to get the into-wind wing down even further - I think this helps stop drift developing in the few moments before you actually touchdown when you are slowly centralising the controls a little - it works for me anyway!
So to re cap... into-wind wheel down first and make sure you have no drift are the main priorities. Screw up of either of these and you're in for an 'interesting' ride!
Kingy
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answers to the question must take account of two things; the type of pilot and the type of aircraft. Some types just don't lend themselves to wheelers.
My view is that whichever type of landing you choose you will still have a period of time when you are at risk. I prefer to limit that risk by reducing the exposure time.
This means for gusty and crosswind conditions a steep approach with side-slip, flare and three-point landing.
If, during the flare full rudder is required, then the wind is too cross and another runway or field is the selected.
The flare, is completed slightly quicker than normal due to the wind gradient and the increased energy required from the steeper approach. The ground roll is reduced because the speed is as slow as it can be at touchdown.
That's just my preference.
My view is that whichever type of landing you choose you will still have a period of time when you are at risk. I prefer to limit that risk by reducing the exposure time.
This means for gusty and crosswind conditions a steep approach with side-slip, flare and three-point landing.
If, during the flare full rudder is required, then the wind is too cross and another runway or field is the selected.
The flare, is completed slightly quicker than normal due to the wind gradient and the increased energy required from the steeper approach. The ground roll is reduced because the speed is as slow as it can be at touchdown.
That's just my preference.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Stripper:
HI.
I normally post only when I think my thoughts may be of value to someone.
This part of Pprune is where the inexperienced go to discuss things.
Having spent my life in aviation and now sort of trying to retire I don't mind taking a few moments to post advice.
I have not flown all the tail wheel airplanes out there but I have flown a very wide variety of tailwheel aircraft.
I have not to this point in time flown one that could not be wheeled on, however there may be some out there somewhere, I just haven't flown it yet.
I can however list several that we very seldom if ever three point for instance the Beech 18, Anson Mk5, DC 3, Grumman Turbo Goose and C117 to name a few. I have over seven thousand hours in the airplanes listed, plus seven years on Aerial Application tail wheel singles and God only knows how many other singles over my career.
So when you re examine the method that I use to teach on tail wheel airplanes it should be apparent that this method is based on trial and error to find the most effective teaching process.
One more suggestion that you may reflect on....
The wheel landing not only gives you better control authority at touch down to maintain directional control or go around, but there is also the added advantage of having the option to be in a better position for differential braking to assist directional control in real hairy x/winds.....
If you lose directional control at touch down in the three point attitude everything goes to hell so fast you do not have time for controlled braking.....
Just something to ponder over..
Chuck
HI.
I normally post only when I think my thoughts may be of value to someone.
This part of Pprune is where the inexperienced go to discuss things.
Having spent my life in aviation and now sort of trying to retire I don't mind taking a few moments to post advice.
I have not flown all the tail wheel airplanes out there but I have flown a very wide variety of tailwheel aircraft.
I have not to this point in time flown one that could not be wheeled on, however there may be some out there somewhere, I just haven't flown it yet.
I can however list several that we very seldom if ever three point for instance the Beech 18, Anson Mk5, DC 3, Grumman Turbo Goose and C117 to name a few. I have over seven thousand hours in the airplanes listed, plus seven years on Aerial Application tail wheel singles and God only knows how many other singles over my career.
So when you re examine the method that I use to teach on tail wheel airplanes it should be apparent that this method is based on trial and error to find the most effective teaching process.
One more suggestion that you may reflect on....
The wheel landing not only gives you better control authority at touch down to maintain directional control or go around, but there is also the added advantage of having the option to be in a better position for differential braking to assist directional control in real hairy x/winds.....
If you lose directional control at touch down in the three point attitude everything goes to hell so fast you do not have time for controlled braking.....
Just something to ponder over..
Chuck
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s an interesting thread this one, and I’ve been pondering a reply for some time.
I believe the real answer lies inbetween many of the posts so far. When I was taught to fly tailwheel (RAF Chipmunk 1969 – 72), we only flew three-point landings, kicking off drift from a crabbed approach. There was only one groundloop from some 120 students in three years. We had a cross wind limit of 10 knots on grass.
Many years later, I converted to the T6 and flew it for over a hundred hours in both the civilian an RAF fields; both operators advocated wheeler landings in crosswinds, from a wing down appoach. The cross wind limit here was 15 kts civil (self imposed) and 10 kts military.
I’ve since flown many other tailwheel types (light aircraft, heavy metal and twins) and I’ve come to the conclusion that the three pointer, in crosswind or otherwise, is the least likely to lead to ground loop. What is critical is that as they touch, the wheels should be pointing in the same direction as the aircraft is moving relative to the ground. Hence, the wing down technique – which means a two point landing in a cross wind (main wheel and tail). At this time, the controls will be set perfectly for the wind and the aircraft can be flown to a stop as the second mainwheel slowly comes down and the machine decelerates to rest. I use a crabbed approach and lower the wing in the latter stages to land wing down with the aircraft stable. In stronger cross winds, I'm much happier with this type of approach.
My reason is that wheels on the ground infront of the aircraft C of G de-stabilise, whereas wheels behind it stabilise. On a wheeler landing, the only ground contact is in-front of the C of G, hence it is de-stabilising. The only stabilising input the pilot has is the rudder (we can look at twins another time), and it will take some time to lower the tail to get the tail wheel on the ground to help the situation. During this time, you should have idle thrust (no energised airflow over the rudder), propeller torque and gyro effects against you (albeit of small value) and a rudder that’s sinking into the turbulence behind the fuselage. Better, therefore to do all this in the air (without the de-stabilising effect of the mainwheel op the ground), and touch down with the tail down, where the tailwheel can help you instantly, when the mainwheel will be de-stabilising you.
However, that said, it really is horses for courses and if a wheeler works for you, then use it.
As a final point, I agree with Chuck on the Beach 18, I’ve only ever wheeled it on, but I’ve only ever landed an Anson three-point, and I’ve yet to experience problems. There are aircraft that must be wheeled on, due mainly to tip stalling – the DH Comet and Rapides, for example (which I haven’t yet flown). There are also aircraft that must not be wheeled. For example, if the Sopwith Pup is wheeled on it will ground loop every time (that’s why it has wing tip protecting hoops!). Even when switched off, the gyroscopic precession caused by the rotating engine will, as the tail is lowered, overpower the minimal righting force from the miniscule rudder and round you’ll go!
I believe the real answer lies inbetween many of the posts so far. When I was taught to fly tailwheel (RAF Chipmunk 1969 – 72), we only flew three-point landings, kicking off drift from a crabbed approach. There was only one groundloop from some 120 students in three years. We had a cross wind limit of 10 knots on grass.
Many years later, I converted to the T6 and flew it for over a hundred hours in both the civilian an RAF fields; both operators advocated wheeler landings in crosswinds, from a wing down appoach. The cross wind limit here was 15 kts civil (self imposed) and 10 kts military.
I’ve since flown many other tailwheel types (light aircraft, heavy metal and twins) and I’ve come to the conclusion that the three pointer, in crosswind or otherwise, is the least likely to lead to ground loop. What is critical is that as they touch, the wheels should be pointing in the same direction as the aircraft is moving relative to the ground. Hence, the wing down technique – which means a two point landing in a cross wind (main wheel and tail). At this time, the controls will be set perfectly for the wind and the aircraft can be flown to a stop as the second mainwheel slowly comes down and the machine decelerates to rest. I use a crabbed approach and lower the wing in the latter stages to land wing down with the aircraft stable. In stronger cross winds, I'm much happier with this type of approach.
My reason is that wheels on the ground infront of the aircraft C of G de-stabilise, whereas wheels behind it stabilise. On a wheeler landing, the only ground contact is in-front of the C of G, hence it is de-stabilising. The only stabilising input the pilot has is the rudder (we can look at twins another time), and it will take some time to lower the tail to get the tail wheel on the ground to help the situation. During this time, you should have idle thrust (no energised airflow over the rudder), propeller torque and gyro effects against you (albeit of small value) and a rudder that’s sinking into the turbulence behind the fuselage. Better, therefore to do all this in the air (without the de-stabilising effect of the mainwheel op the ground), and touch down with the tail down, where the tailwheel can help you instantly, when the mainwheel will be de-stabilising you.
However, that said, it really is horses for courses and if a wheeler works for you, then use it.
As a final point, I agree with Chuck on the Beach 18, I’ve only ever wheeled it on, but I’ve only ever landed an Anson three-point, and I’ve yet to experience problems. There are aircraft that must be wheeled on, due mainly to tip stalling – the DH Comet and Rapides, for example (which I haven’t yet flown). There are also aircraft that must not be wheeled. For example, if the Sopwith Pup is wheeled on it will ground loop every time (that’s why it has wing tip protecting hoops!). Even when switched off, the gyroscopic precession caused by the rotating engine will, as the tail is lowered, overpower the minimal righting force from the miniscule rudder and round you’ll go!
I'm not even going to try and second guess the superb advice of people like Airbedane who has far more taildragger hours in more types than I have. Nonetheless I do fly a lot of low-speed flying machines and would like to offer one thought.
Many of the more interesting taildraggers were designed in the days before narrow runways - airfields were sort of square-ish and you landed as near as you reasonably could into wind. But they are also very good low-speed, short-field aeroplanes.
So at many modern airfields it is entirely do-able to bring the crosswind component down to a much smaller value so long as you have a reasonable feel for take-off and landing distances.
How - use the runway diagonal !
Let's say you have a 15kn wind at 30° off the runway heading, that's a moderately sporting 7½ crosswind component. Land on a 20° diagonal it comes down to a 2½kn component that you won't even notice, and a sufficiently large headwind that most taildraggers flown to a full-stall 3-pointer will be stationary in very little indeed.
Just thought I'd mention it. It's incidentally the way I was taught to fly microlights, and have regularly used it for taildraggers - looks inelegant to the casual bystander but causes no real nuisance so long as you turn gently onto heading as soon as you're airborne.
G
Many of the more interesting taildraggers were designed in the days before narrow runways - airfields were sort of square-ish and you landed as near as you reasonably could into wind. But they are also very good low-speed, short-field aeroplanes.
So at many modern airfields it is entirely do-able to bring the crosswind component down to a much smaller value so long as you have a reasonable feel for take-off and landing distances.
How - use the runway diagonal !
Let's say you have a 15kn wind at 30° off the runway heading, that's a moderately sporting 7½ crosswind component. Land on a 20° diagonal it comes down to a 2½kn component that you won't even notice, and a sufficiently large headwind that most taildraggers flown to a full-stall 3-pointer will be stationary in very little indeed.
Just thought I'd mention it. It's incidentally the way I was taught to fly microlights, and have regularly used it for taildraggers - looks inelegant to the casual bystander but causes no real nuisance so long as you turn gently onto heading as soon as you're airborne.
G
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SE England
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO think it all depends on the type;
For instance, the taildragger i fly you have to land it all 3 at once b/c the prop is just that little bit to low that if you wheeled it on like a spit; you would have a very hig risk of dinking the prop and nosing over - esp. with not so exprience pilots. I crab it in and kick off the drift in crosswinds as someone else previously mentioned.
Heres one - how do people with a Europa with mono wheel and tailwheel config. land?
For instance, the taildragger i fly you have to land it all 3 at once b/c the prop is just that little bit to low that if you wheeled it on like a spit; you would have a very hig risk of dinking the prop and nosing over - esp. with not so exprience pilots. I crab it in and kick off the drift in crosswinds as someone else previously mentioned.
Heres one - how do people with a Europa with mono wheel and tailwheel config. land?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how do people with a Europa with mono wheel and tailwheel config. land?
Ok, seriously... no wheel-landings, because of the lack of prop clearance. No wing-low landings with more than a couple of degrees of bank, because the outriggers aren't designed to handle the impact. So that basically leaves you to de-crab for a 3-point (2-point? 4-point?) landing, which is not easy, to say the least, in an aircraft with a MAUW of 622kg.
A realistic cross-wind limit for an experienced and current Europa pilot would be 12kt. I'm currently working with an 8kt limit, because I'm not current enough to be able to handle 12kt at the moment.
FFF
---------------
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The monowheels really do take all of the worst attributes of the taildragger and combine them into one aircraft. Having such a narrow wheelbase means that anything other than absoltuely straight on landing will result in loss of control (ask me how I know). Combine this with the lack of prop clearance, and the outriggers preventing you from landing with a wing low, and yes, they are a handful. There is also no suspension to talk of, so they are particularly uncomfortable on bumpy ground (the only taildragger I've found which I'm happier to land on a hard runway than on a bumpy grass runway).
On the flip side, though, they are the only retractible Europa, and if you're looking for a touring aircraft that will make a difference to both the cruise speed and the fuel consumption. And the best bit is that, on the very rare occassions when you pull of a greaser, it's extremely satisfying!
Basically, they are nothing to be afraid of - so long as you are aware of their deficiencies, and set yourself appropriate limits.
FFF
---------------
On the flip side, though, they are the only retractible Europa, and if you're looking for a touring aircraft that will make a difference to both the cruise speed and the fuel consumption. And the best bit is that, on the very rare occassions when you pull of a greaser, it's extremely satisfying!
Basically, they are nothing to be afraid of - so long as you are aware of their deficiencies, and set yourself appropriate limits.
FFF
---------------