PA18-150 dem x-wind limit?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are trying to do the shortest landing the best way is to wheel it on and touch down as close to the start of the runway as possible, once the wheels are on the runway you lower the nose to put as much weight as possible on the wheels so you can use maximum braking.
You cannot use maximum braking in a three point attitude due to wheel skid due to the lift produced by the high angle of attack of the wings.
And Please, please , please dont tell me that is not the way to do it because most of my tail wheel time is in the DC3 and almost all of it on unprepared short strips. And yes I have three pointed the 3 many times just for something different to do, but never with passengers on board.
Chuck
You cannot use maximum braking in a three point attitude due to wheel skid due to the lift produced by the high angle of attack of the wings.
And Please, please , please dont tell me that is not the way to do it because most of my tail wheel time is in the DC3 and almost all of it on unprepared short strips. And yes I have three pointed the 3 many times just for something different to do, but never with passengers on board.
Chuck
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
I was taught to fly tail-draggers in the UK. I was not taught wheel-landings.
On checking out on a tail-dragger (a PA18-150, as it happens) in the US, I was taught wheel-landings. Including, as I said in my earlier posts, wheel-landings in cross-winds well in excess of the max demonstrated cross-wind. It was only then that I realised just how lacking my original training was.
I vowed that when I become an instructor and do tailwheel conversions myself, I will never sign anyone off unless they can do a wheel-landing, assuming they are flying an appropriate aircraft. (I'd disagree with Chuck about there being no aircraft which can't be wheeled on, but the only reason I can think of would be limited prop clearance such as that on the Europa mono-wheel, and, I believe [but I've not had the pleasure of trying it myself yet] some Sukhois. Chuck, do you have any thoughts on that?) Now I'm an instructor, and although I've not yet done any tail-wheel conversions (my boss refuses to buy a tail-dragger no matter how much I pester him about it!) I still stick by this.
FFF
---------------
On checking out on a tail-dragger (a PA18-150, as it happens) in the US, I was taught wheel-landings. Including, as I said in my earlier posts, wheel-landings in cross-winds well in excess of the max demonstrated cross-wind. It was only then that I realised just how lacking my original training was.
I vowed that when I become an instructor and do tailwheel conversions myself, I will never sign anyone off unless they can do a wheel-landing, assuming they are flying an appropriate aircraft. (I'd disagree with Chuck about there being no aircraft which can't be wheeled on, but the only reason I can think of would be limited prop clearance such as that on the Europa mono-wheel, and, I believe [but I've not had the pleasure of trying it myself yet] some Sukhois. Chuck, do you have any thoughts on that?) Now I'm an instructor, and although I've not yet done any tail-wheel conversions (my boss refuses to buy a tail-dragger no matter how much I pester him about it!) I still stick by this.
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingForFun, I support your plan to require proficient wheelers as a condition of all tailwheel checkouts.
I agree with Chuck that there are few if any tailwheel airplanes that can't perform wheel landings (IMHO, a Europa doesn't disprove this, since it isn't a tailwheel aircraft). But I suppose there must be a few out there, since (in setting out the criteria for a tailwheel endorsement in the USA) FAR §61.31(i) says:
"The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures"
[emphasis added].
I have read that the Globe Swift should not be three-pointed (see also here), but don't know if that is actually correct. I do know that when I flew in a Swift last year, the pilot demonstrated both wheelers and three pointers without incident (perhaps he was just lucky).
Chuck, you have, what, 50 times more experience than me, so I defer to your wisdom. However, I remained convinced that a relatively low-time tailwheel pilot will almost invariably perform a shorter landing using the three-point method.
I agree with Chuck that there are few if any tailwheel airplanes that can't perform wheel landings (IMHO, a Europa doesn't disprove this, since it isn't a tailwheel aircraft). But I suppose there must be a few out there, since (in setting out the criteria for a tailwheel endorsement in the USA) FAR §61.31(i) says:
"The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures"
[emphasis added].
I have read that the Globe Swift should not be three-pointed (see also here), but don't know if that is actually correct. I do know that when I flew in a Swift last year, the pilot demonstrated both wheelers and three pointers without incident (perhaps he was just lucky).
If you are trying to do the shortest landing the best way is to wheel it on and touch down as close to the start of the runway as possible, once the wheels are on the runway you lower the nose to put as much weight as possible on the wheels so you can use maximum braking.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chuck
I personally disagree with you there: in my experience the shortest landing roll is achieved by 3-pointing and then raising the tail for the max braking reasons you mention (Extras and the like seem to like this). But this (and indeed your) suggestion should be attempted only by experienced pilots, because of the potential to "nose-over".
Incidentally, the DC3 operating out of Hampton, NH (2300 ft, grass, 80 ft trees each end) appears to operate quite happily without stomping on the brakes.
Not wanting to cast nasturtiums,
would you at least agree that operating a DC3 is not going to have an awful lot of relevance to the majority of tailwheel pilots? Particularly those who are checking out in a Cub 150? And indeed those on a forum such as this?
Another consideration is that instruction here in the UK also gives much time to teaching when not to fly; keeping eyes on the weather, runway/wind direction at the destination, the pilot's abilities, personal limits, etc. I do not mean to suggest that this is not also the case in BC, what with its own weather being inclement so often, but perhaps here with our unpredictable wx, we give it a little more attention.
I still think that wheelers are not necessary for a tailwheel endorsement, but do agree that they should form part of further training before pilots progress to certain types or for extending their competence (and indeed for fun!).
All of the above posted IMHO by a relatively inexperienced pilot, but who only does wheelers for the fun of it.
I personally disagree with you there: in my experience the shortest landing roll is achieved by 3-pointing and then raising the tail for the max braking reasons you mention (Extras and the like seem to like this). But this (and indeed your) suggestion should be attempted only by experienced pilots, because of the potential to "nose-over".
Incidentally, the DC3 operating out of Hampton, NH (2300 ft, grass, 80 ft trees each end) appears to operate quite happily without stomping on the brakes.
Not wanting to cast nasturtiums,
most of my tail wheel time is in the DC3
Another consideration is that instruction here in the UK also gives much time to teaching when not to fly; keeping eyes on the weather, runway/wind direction at the destination, the pilot's abilities, personal limits, etc. I do not mean to suggest that this is not also the case in BC, what with its own weather being inclement so often, but perhaps here with our unpredictable wx, we give it a little more attention.
I still think that wheelers are not necessary for a tailwheel endorsement, but do agree that they should form part of further training before pilots progress to certain types or for extending their competence (and indeed for fun!).
All of the above posted IMHO by a relatively inexperienced pilot, but who only does wheelers for the fun of it.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to blame myself for all this typing on this key board, but what the hell it is the private pilots forum, so I will just keep giving you my thoughts on this subject.
So, to Flying for fun::
I said that I have not flown a tail wheel airplane that I couldn't wheel land. However when first flying a strange tail wheel airplane I make a note of how high the tail would have to be to have a prop strike.
I am sure there are aircraft out there that would have a prop strike if you got the tail to high, I just have not flown one..
MLS-12D ::
The swift can be wheeled or three pointed with no great difficulty and is a little great toy I just loved it.
Dub Thrub ::
We each have out preceptions and experiences with " How best to fly "
Try thinking about this.
It is easier to place the wheels on a given point, lets say on the first ten feet of a paved runway wheel landing then it is to try and judge the float needed to contact the exact same spot when three pointing the thing. Not to mention that raising the tail after the three point will take more time and eat up more runway to get sufficient weight on the wheels for maximum braking.
Furthermore a wheel landing can be made with the touchdown speed at the stall, you just have to practice.
A tail wheel airplane is a tail wheel airplane, they all have the same take off and landing characteristics, they will of coures have different speeds and may be different in size but they are all the same as far as how to fly them.
I would never allow any pilot to fly a tail wheel airplane unless they were properly trained in how to fly one, if they can only perform three point landings they are are only partially trained.
There is no possible way to convince me that a partially trained pilot is competent.
But hey, we all have our opinions. For all you pilots who were deprived of proper training the fault lies with your instructor.
Chuck
So, to Flying for fun::
I said that I have not flown a tail wheel airplane that I couldn't wheel land. However when first flying a strange tail wheel airplane I make a note of how high the tail would have to be to have a prop strike.
I am sure there are aircraft out there that would have a prop strike if you got the tail to high, I just have not flown one..
MLS-12D ::
The swift can be wheeled or three pointed with no great difficulty and is a little great toy I just loved it.
Dub Thrub ::
We each have out preceptions and experiences with " How best to fly "
Try thinking about this.
It is easier to place the wheels on a given point, lets say on the first ten feet of a paved runway wheel landing then it is to try and judge the float needed to contact the exact same spot when three pointing the thing. Not to mention that raising the tail after the three point will take more time and eat up more runway to get sufficient weight on the wheels for maximum braking.
Furthermore a wheel landing can be made with the touchdown speed at the stall, you just have to practice.
A tail wheel airplane is a tail wheel airplane, they all have the same take off and landing characteristics, they will of coures have different speeds and may be different in size but they are all the same as far as how to fly them.
I would never allow any pilot to fly a tail wheel airplane unless they were properly trained in how to fly one, if they can only perform three point landings they are are only partially trained.
There is no possible way to convince me that a partially trained pilot is competent.
But hey, we all have our opinions. For all you pilots who were deprived of proper training the fault lies with your instructor.
Chuck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, you have got me worried. I have about 45 hours tail time out of 800+, and fly about 10 hours tw a year. I have never learned to wheal it on, despite having checked out at a number of clubs with a number of instructors. When I have asked, most people take the view it is not done on the sort of a/c they have. I have very little problem landing 3 point on tarmac up to 15k cw in a Jodel, and have recently managed 13k no problem in a Cub on grass.
Two questions;
What would I gain from doing a wheeler?
How long will it take the average pilot to learn?
Rod1
Two questions;
What would I gain from doing a wheeler?
How long will it take the average pilot to learn?
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod,
I was never "taught" either, perhaps because the first tailwheel type I learned to land was a Pitts and you always land them 3 point. (Ref Chuck's comments above, I'd be interested to hear how one could wheel land a Pitts at stalling speed. To stall you need the angle of attack to be quite high, and to achieve that in level flight you'll be in a 3 point attitude, or even more tail low than 3 point.)
However, in Jodels (and Cubs, though I don't have much experience in them) it is easy to do a wheel landing once you are familiar with the aeroplane. I started doing them for the fun of it, and haven't had any problems. The main risk is pushing too hard and nosing over, but that's not something you're likely to do by mistake if you are experienced and current.
I was never "taught" either, perhaps because the first tailwheel type I learned to land was a Pitts and you always land them 3 point. (Ref Chuck's comments above, I'd be interested to hear how one could wheel land a Pitts at stalling speed. To stall you need the angle of attack to be quite high, and to achieve that in level flight you'll be in a 3 point attitude, or even more tail low than 3 point.)
However, in Jodels (and Cubs, though I don't have much experience in them) it is easy to do a wheel landing once you are familiar with the aeroplane. I started doing them for the fun of it, and haven't had any problems. The main risk is pushing too hard and nosing over, but that's not something you're likely to do by mistake if you are experienced and current.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never INTENTIONALLY landed my Pitts on the main gear but it has happened!
Sean D Tucker - now he amazes me with his high speed wheelers and the rest of his display, well...............
Stik
Sean D Tucker - now he amazes me with his high speed wheelers and the rest of his display, well...............
Stik
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I knew I'd get my nuts caught in a wringer if I started to debate how to fly tail wheel airplanes.
So first let me add on to my comment about short wheel landing touch downs. By " at the stall " I mean just prior to the stall.
Stiknruda and Aerobatic flyer, yes the Pitts is a demanding aeroplane to fly, I just started flying a S2B in Holland and for sure it lacks for foward visibility on final approach and in the landing flare. But like most all aircraft it is easy to approach and land in the curving approach to the touch down. ( I used the word "most" to prevent someone from telling me a 747 is not easy to land in the curved approach to the touch down. )
Unless of course you do a steep straight in at 200mph and use the prop as a speed brake just prior to the flare for a wheel landing like Sean Tucker, but who can afford the engine and prop he flys with?
So even including a Pitts, I still have not flown a tail wheel airplane that can't be wheeled on.
Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach. Maybe that is why they get paid peanuts?
OOOOhhh..that comment is going to get me in trouble.
Chuck E.
So first let me add on to my comment about short wheel landing touch downs. By " at the stall " I mean just prior to the stall.
Stiknruda and Aerobatic flyer, yes the Pitts is a demanding aeroplane to fly, I just started flying a S2B in Holland and for sure it lacks for foward visibility on final approach and in the landing flare. But like most all aircraft it is easy to approach and land in the curving approach to the touch down. ( I used the word "most" to prevent someone from telling me a 747 is not easy to land in the curved approach to the touch down. )
Unless of course you do a steep straight in at 200mph and use the prop as a speed brake just prior to the flare for a wheel landing like Sean Tucker, but who can afford the engine and prop he flys with?
So even including a Pitts, I still have not flown a tail wheel airplane that can't be wheeled on.
Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach. Maybe that is why they get paid peanuts?
OOOOhhh..that comment is going to get me in trouble.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach. Maybe that is why they get paid peanuts?
Their view is that if I've been trained to fly by them, I can probably cope and they're happy to let me take the aeroplane where I want. And, as I mentioned above, I found that after doing the mountain flying courses with them I didn't have any problems doing wheel landings on my own.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chuck
Perhaps no-one taught the instructors? Is there a syllabus? Or is it down to the knowledge of the instructors?
Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concept of PFA coaches was partly brought about due to the lack of tw expertise in instructor land. Anyone know if the PFA have a syllabus, and PFA people care to comment?
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my God what have I started here.
Oh well I'm in it this far and I never was one to let well enough alone so let me once again offer my opinion on some comments here..
O.K. ? there will be no hurt feelings? O.K. ?
Dub Trub :
I would guess you are right, no one taught them so therein lies the reason for the lack of knowledge so prevelent in this issue.
Aerobatic flyer :
Here is my generalisation on your comments.
Maybe the problem with the pilots you were taught by "IS" because they are " Career instructors "?
May I suggest that if you teach the same thing three times or thirty thousand times and never evolve past your level of instructing with regard to proceedures ( Three point v.s. wheel landings ) you are exactly what you teach...limited in knowledge and or skills levels?
I am not a career instructor, I am a working pilot who learned to fly by working in a very broad arena of flying both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, including aerial applicating, fire bombing and many years in the High Arctic flying everything from Super Cubs to the DC6 in the High Arctic.
It is beyond my comprehension to even think that anyone could suggest that wheel landings are some kind of black magic that only the high priests of our group are capable of..
Yikes....I'm finished with this subject and will just fade into the background and wait for some other simple problem to come on the screen.
Chuck
Oh well I'm in it this far and I never was one to let well enough alone so let me once again offer my opinion on some comments here..
O.K. ? there will be no hurt feelings? O.K. ?
Dub Trub :
I would guess you are right, no one taught them so therein lies the reason for the lack of knowledge so prevelent in this issue.
Aerobatic flyer :
Here is my generalisation on your comments.
Maybe the problem with the pilots you were taught by "IS" because they are " Career instructors "?
May I suggest that if you teach the same thing three times or thirty thousand times and never evolve past your level of instructing with regard to proceedures ( Three point v.s. wheel landings ) you are exactly what you teach...limited in knowledge and or skills levels?
I am not a career instructor, I am a working pilot who learned to fly by working in a very broad arena of flying both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, including aerial applicating, fire bombing and many years in the High Arctic flying everything from Super Cubs to the DC6 in the High Arctic.
It is beyond my comprehension to even think that anyone could suggest that wheel landings are some kind of black magic that only the high priests of our group are capable of..
Yikes....I'm finished with this subject and will just fade into the background and wait for some other simple problem to come on the screen.
Chuck
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
Yeah - you might have a point there!
(As usual, by the way...)
In defence of the people I was refering to, the term "career instructors" was perhaps badly chosen. Although they are now full-time instructors, their aviation experience is pretty broad - airline, military, rotary... and their instruction experience includes oddities such as giving annual refresher training to the French fire bombing crews in the winter seasons.
The point I was trying to make (badly) was that limited understanding of the subject by instructors is not necessarily why some people don't get taught wheel landings. The second point was that wheel landings don't seem to be a big deal anyway!
Yeah - you might have a point there!
(As usual, by the way...)In defence of the people I was refering to, the term "career instructors" was perhaps badly chosen. Although they are now full-time instructors, their aviation experience is pretty broad - airline, military, rotary... and their instruction experience includes oddities such as giving annual refresher training to the French fire bombing crews in the winter seasons.
The point I was trying to make (badly) was that limited understanding of the subject by instructors is not necessarily why some people don't get taught wheel landings. The second point was that wheel landings don't seem to be a big deal anyway!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would never allow any pilot to fly a tail wheel airplane unless they were properly trained in how to fly one, if they can only perform three point landings they are are only partially trained. There is no possible way to convince me that a partially trained pilot is competent.... For all you pilots who were deprived of proper training the fault lies with your instructor.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey ... hasn't this turned into an interesting debate from a simple question?
I was taught three point and wheelers when I converted to power from gliders at Cambridge. Also things like taxying unbraked tailskidders downhill, downwind in strong winds ect ect. All this by an ex Lanc pilot and another instructor who was a Lancaster navigator. Converting from gliders I found wheelers more natural at first, but over the years I have almost completely changed to three point as a more natural feeling way to land.
Certainly at my experience level I find three point the best way to land short ... usually by holding the aircraft at the back of the drag curve with power and chopping the throttle at the point of touchdown. This always results in a three pointer in my experience and isn't always the prettiest way to land but then a perfect greaser with a roll out into the far hedge looks uglier in the end! Perhaps not the safest way either if you think about power failure, but very effective if you want to get into somewhere very short. It's certainly not the only method and not always the most approriate but I personally don't think I could land shorter in any other way.
That said, it's easy to get stuck in the habit of three pointers and forget that wheelers are sometimes a better option. I had my first groundloop earlier this year when I landed the Falconar at Thruxton in a brisk crosswind onto tarmac. I could easily have wheeled it on and afterwards wondered why I didn't ... habit!
SS
I had the same problem (and still do to a certain extent) with go arounds, having been a glider pilot first.
I was taught three point and wheelers when I converted to power from gliders at Cambridge. Also things like taxying unbraked tailskidders downhill, downwind in strong winds ect ect. All this by an ex Lanc pilot and another instructor who was a Lancaster navigator. Converting from gliders I found wheelers more natural at first, but over the years I have almost completely changed to three point as a more natural feeling way to land.
Certainly at my experience level I find three point the best way to land short ... usually by holding the aircraft at the back of the drag curve with power and chopping the throttle at the point of touchdown. This always results in a three pointer in my experience and isn't always the prettiest way to land but then a perfect greaser with a roll out into the far hedge looks uglier in the end! Perhaps not the safest way either if you think about power failure, but very effective if you want to get into somewhere very short. It's certainly not the only method and not always the most approriate but I personally don't think I could land shorter in any other way.
That said, it's easy to get stuck in the habit of three pointers and forget that wheelers are sometimes a better option. I had my first groundloop earlier this year when I landed the Falconar at Thruxton in a brisk crosswind onto tarmac. I could easily have wheeled it on and afterwards wondered why I didn't ... habit!
SS
I had the same problem (and still do to a certain extent) with go arounds, having been a glider pilot first.
