Tail Dragger Conversion
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 43
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tail wheel checkout is not complete without 2 and 3 point touchdowns. If you can not do both you should try one or go get some more training.
At the end of my video you can see a few REAL wheelers. 4:04 of some fun Luscombe flying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvucXMFdhFs
At the end of my video you can see a few REAL wheelers. 4:04 of some fun Luscombe flying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvucXMFdhFs
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucy Lastic:
"Fail to see the benefit of wheelers..."
One benefit is that you don't come close to the stall during the roundout. No issue there, then, unless you get to fly something like the DH Dragon Rapide. This aeroplane (and others) is apparently prone to tip stalling - VERY pronounced wing drop at the stall. This is fine as long as you arrive in the correct three point attitude at the correct height above the runway EVERY TIME! For the rest of us mere mortals, a much safer approach is to get the main wheels down at a much safer (faster ) speed and let the speed decay whilst on the runway. More rudder control during the rollout and less danger of a ONE(wingtip) point landing!
This is not my own opinion/experience, by the way (I've never flown this aeroplane), but that of a very experienced friend who advocates the tail down wheeler every time in such a/c.
I believe this is also the case with the DC3!
"Fail to see the benefit of wheelers..."
One benefit is that you don't come close to the stall during the roundout. No issue there, then, unless you get to fly something like the DH Dragon Rapide. This aeroplane (and others) is apparently prone to tip stalling - VERY pronounced wing drop at the stall. This is fine as long as you arrive in the correct three point attitude at the correct height above the runway EVERY TIME! For the rest of us mere mortals, a much safer approach is to get the main wheels down at a much safer (faster ) speed and let the speed decay whilst on the runway. More rudder control during the rollout and less danger of a ONE(wingtip) point landing!
This is not my own opinion/experience, by the way (I've never flown this aeroplane), but that of a very experienced friend who advocates the tail down wheeler every time in such a/c.
I believe this is also the case with the DC3!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxmoth
Are you insinuating that I would not go about this in a responsible manner?
I understand the principle, but you are therefore suggesting a higher than normal IAS on the approach for a "conventional" tailwheel landing? Yet, I thought I was trying to back the speed off to reduce any further momentum once the stick comes back to avoid climbing again.
Its been hard enough to feel safe at 65 kts over the fence
I shall speak with my tutor and colleague who flew it around the world
Are you insinuating that I would not go about this in a responsible manner?
I understand the principle, but you are therefore suggesting a higher than normal IAS on the approach for a "conventional" tailwheel landing? Yet, I thought I was trying to back the speed off to reduce any further momentum once the stick comes back to avoid climbing again.
Its been hard enough to feel safe at 65 kts over the fence
I shall speak with my tutor and colleague who flew it around the world
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you insinuating that I would not go about this in a responsible manner?
As far as speeds go, you fly the approach much as you normally would do, the difference comes in the hold off - fly level just above the runway and you will touch down not much below your normal approach speed. (not going fully into the technique here)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good old Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder author) says that a wheeler landing should not lengthen the LDR, he recommends shoving the stick forward to get the mains firmly pressed on to the ground. Have to say that I really haven't got the hang of this, my wheelers usually involve a bounce and lots of fumbling. I guess practice makes perfect.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, WaldoPepper.
There are lots of entries in very faded ink in my books and referring to the DH89A. Like all DH aircraft, lovely to fly but those pointy wing tips could stop working very quickly and you never knew which wing would drop. Kept you on your toes.
In strong cross winds - I don't remember the limits but invariably they were exceeded - the technique very definitely was to make a slipping, powered approach for a main wheel landing but keeping the speed at normal +10 so that the downwind wing tip did not stall when the rudder was kicked to bring everything onto the centreline. Tail was kept up for as long as possible and occasionally, the upwind engine could be opened up a smidgeon to help the rudder.
Trying a 3-pointer in any strong cross wind more than 15deg. off the bow is asking for a ground loop in many aircraft types. Did I hear someone say "Beech 18 . . . "?
There are lots of entries in very faded ink in my books and referring to the DH89A. Like all DH aircraft, lovely to fly but those pointy wing tips could stop working very quickly and you never knew which wing would drop. Kept you on your toes.
In strong cross winds - I don't remember the limits but invariably they were exceeded - the technique very definitely was to make a slipping, powered approach for a main wheel landing but keeping the speed at normal +10 so that the downwind wing tip did not stall when the rudder was kicked to bring everything onto the centreline. Tail was kept up for as long as possible and occasionally, the upwind engine could be opened up a smidgeon to help the rudder.
Trying a 3-pointer in any strong cross wind more than 15deg. off the bow is asking for a ground loop in many aircraft types. Did I hear someone say "Beech 18 . . . "?
I'm still unconvinced with this wheeler thing, despite everything I read.
GQ, if you are doing a slipping approach (i.e. wing down) why do you need to kick the rudder in to straighten it? Surely you are already parallel to the centreline?
There is a nice bit of footage on the One-Six Right website, under the videos section - Flight - that follows a DC-3 in for a wheeler. Watch the guy working the rudder on the roll-out!
Anyway, the way I understand it (the theory, anyway), is the only time you'll ground loop it is when your wheels are on the deck. Eventually you have to transition the airspeed region where you have no rudder/tailplane control authority, so surely you're better to do this with the tailwheel firmly on the deck?
A
GQ, if you are doing a slipping approach (i.e. wing down) why do you need to kick the rudder in to straighten it? Surely you are already parallel to the centreline?
There is a nice bit of footage on the One-Six Right website, under the videos section - Flight - that follows a DC-3 in for a wheeler. Watch the guy working the rudder on the roll-out!
Anyway, the way I understand it (the theory, anyway), is the only time you'll ground loop it is when your wheels are on the deck. Eventually you have to transition the airspeed region where you have no rudder/tailplane control authority, so surely you're better to do this with the tailwheel firmly on the deck?
A
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so surely you're better to do this with the tailwheel firmly on the deck?
Last edited by foxmoth; 26th Feb 2007 at 07:13.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems not mentioned with the DC-3 (and probably many other large tailwheel types) is the wing masks the airflow over the tail. There is no tailwheel steering on the Dak so by doing a wheeler you keep the tail up in the airflow and maintain directional control. Likewise take off getting the tail up early. At low speeds the locking tailwheel and differential power should keep you straight ish.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy-RR,
You are correct in your observations - usually one adopts one cross-wind technique approach or the other, often depending upon whether high or low wing but my comments supposed a beam wind close to or above placarded limits.
The lower wing of the Rapide was not far off the ground and one did not want too much angle of bank close to the round-out - particularly in gusty conditions. I have to admit that a slipping approach, crosswind or not, was very much a standard approach with older types of aircraft, many of which did not have flaps. The Rapide (at least the later "A" suffix DH89) had flaps but these were fairly rudimentary devices and not at all powerful. The sideslip was an accepted and usual method of losing height.
Additionally, given the restricted (compared with modern aircraft) ability to see forward of the cockpit, the sideslip, usually accompanied by a nose-down attitude, gave a much improved view forward; not so necessary in the Rapide, I admit, as the forward visibilty was good and the pilot sat on the centreline. Try a no-slip, powered approach in a Percival Prentice and you'll see what I mean.
The question of wheelers is an interesting one but in the case of the Rapide, they were very much de rigeur in certain conditions. As Daysleeper points out, when required, the tail was kept up to keep it in clean air and maintain rudder control for as long as possible - there was no propwash to assist. Twin-tailed kites were a lot better in this regard (naturally!) which is one of the reasons so many multi-engined tail wheel aircraft were multi-tailed too.
I am in several minds about steering tail wheels. In some respects they inhibit ground manoeuvering but they are better than a fixed wheel, particularly on initial take-off roll and in cross winds. There was a lot to be said for the old skid - on grass, anyway. In something like the DC3 with a fixed wheel, it was important to accurately line the aircraft up with the runway centreline (if there was one) and set the DI on take-off as forward vision was nil until the tail came up. Incidentally, we usually were made to pay for the broken shearpin following a failure to mumble something about "tail wheel un-lock" on the downwind leg.
Happy days!
You are correct in your observations - usually one adopts one cross-wind technique approach or the other, often depending upon whether high or low wing but my comments supposed a beam wind close to or above placarded limits.
The lower wing of the Rapide was not far off the ground and one did not want too much angle of bank close to the round-out - particularly in gusty conditions. I have to admit that a slipping approach, crosswind or not, was very much a standard approach with older types of aircraft, many of which did not have flaps. The Rapide (at least the later "A" suffix DH89) had flaps but these were fairly rudimentary devices and not at all powerful. The sideslip was an accepted and usual method of losing height.
Additionally, given the restricted (compared with modern aircraft) ability to see forward of the cockpit, the sideslip, usually accompanied by a nose-down attitude, gave a much improved view forward; not so necessary in the Rapide, I admit, as the forward visibilty was good and the pilot sat on the centreline. Try a no-slip, powered approach in a Percival Prentice and you'll see what I mean.
The question of wheelers is an interesting one but in the case of the Rapide, they were very much de rigeur in certain conditions. As Daysleeper points out, when required, the tail was kept up to keep it in clean air and maintain rudder control for as long as possible - there was no propwash to assist. Twin-tailed kites were a lot better in this regard (naturally!) which is one of the reasons so many multi-engined tail wheel aircraft were multi-tailed too.
I am in several minds about steering tail wheels. In some respects they inhibit ground manoeuvering but they are better than a fixed wheel, particularly on initial take-off roll and in cross winds. There was a lot to be said for the old skid - on grass, anyway. In something like the DC3 with a fixed wheel, it was important to accurately line the aircraft up with the runway centreline (if there was one) and set the DI on take-off as forward vision was nil until the tail came up. Incidentally, we usually were made to pay for the broken shearpin following a failure to mumble something about "tail wheel un-lock" on the downwind leg.
Happy days!
