X/winds and tail wheel airplanes.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: woking
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck
I'm currently learning to fly a Pitts. Could you possibly go into some detail on why wheelers in cross winds are the way to go please.
In the Pitts i'm currently 3 pointing on, then lifting the tail to lower the AoA thus lift, which seems to settle her on nicely. This seems to be a common technique amongst pitts pilots.
i haven't had a chance to try a wheeler in strong cross winds but would love to learn about why i really should be trying it soon, especially if it makes me safer!
I'm currently learning to fly a Pitts. Could you possibly go into some detail on why wheelers in cross winds are the way to go please.
In the Pitts i'm currently 3 pointing on, then lifting the tail to lower the AoA thus lift, which seems to settle her on nicely. This seems to be a common technique amongst pitts pilots.
i haven't had a chance to try a wheeler in strong cross winds but would love to learn about why i really should be trying it soon, especially if it makes me safer!
Chuck, they don't do it that way because their instructor teaches them to three point....
And the instructor does that because thats how he/she was taught
And most instructors can't afford to hire a taildragger and wring it out properly and find out for themselves because instructing is what they are doing while they try to get hired by an airline, rather than a career.
Times I am very happy to have learned to fly a Cub at Lasham, pulling gliders in to the sky. Minimum of six tows an hour, land where there is a vacant bit of airfield not too far from the next glider. Teaches landings and eyes out on stalks. Doesn't do wonders for navigation skills or pratting around on the radio.
No offence intended to career instructors. I was taught by one, and am trying to repay forward what he gave me.
And the instructor does that because thats how he/she was taught
And most instructors can't afford to hire a taildragger and wring it out properly and find out for themselves because instructing is what they are doing while they try to get hired by an airline, rather than a career.
Times I am very happy to have learned to fly a Cub at Lasham, pulling gliders in to the sky. Minimum of six tows an hour, land where there is a vacant bit of airfield not too far from the next glider. Teaches landings and eyes out on stalks. Doesn't do wonders for navigation skills or pratting around on the radio.
No offence intended to career instructors. I was taught by one, and am trying to repay forward what he gave me.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very low hour PPL in general and even much more low-houred in taildraggers, but doesn't a wheel landing in a crosswind just postpone the problem? I can see why tail up with unobstructed rudder and higher speed would give better control at touchdown, but one has to slow down and get the tail down at some moment, and if I remember my TW instructor correctly, that results in an even more vulnerable moment compared to putting two wheels (windward main wheel and tailwheel) on the ground, especially with a steerable tailwheel (as in the Citabria I had my few lessons in).
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
youngman1, these are just my thoughts on the Pitts from my own experience with it.
Wheel landing the Pitts requires more precise control than 3-pointing. In the 3-point attitude you will have around 11-12 degrees AoA, and landing at flying speed, it's almost like skimming a stone across water. The only way to stop it flying is to put it on and slow it down. 3-point, you can hit the brakes fairly hard and if the tail comes up so be it, there's no major drama. If you land with the tail up you may find it harder to get on the brakes without starting to nose-over (not good with a big prop), and you have less drag to help slow you down. Also if you have anything less than a very gentle touch down on the mains it will jump off again and chew up a fair chunk of runway.
The 1971 UK flight manual supplement to the FAA approved flight manual contains the following:
"Section 3 - Performance Information...
...D. Landing
The Landing should always be 3-point.
Brakes can be used fairly hard, if necessary, almost regardless of wind strength and direction.
Ailerons should be used to assist keep into-wind wing down when on the ground if necessary."
I'm not suggesting the manual is the only way to land a Pitts, because I've seen many pilots fly it differently, but if you are going to do something different from the flight manual I suggest you make sure you fully understand why. If the answer is "because I was taught that way" and it was never otherwise explained to you than that is probably a good example of what Chuck is suggesting with problems in tail-wheel instruction.
Wheel landing the Pitts requires more precise control than 3-pointing. In the 3-point attitude you will have around 11-12 degrees AoA, and landing at flying speed, it's almost like skimming a stone across water. The only way to stop it flying is to put it on and slow it down. 3-point, you can hit the brakes fairly hard and if the tail comes up so be it, there's no major drama. If you land with the tail up you may find it harder to get on the brakes without starting to nose-over (not good with a big prop), and you have less drag to help slow you down. Also if you have anything less than a very gentle touch down on the mains it will jump off again and chew up a fair chunk of runway.
The 1971 UK flight manual supplement to the FAA approved flight manual contains the following:
"Section 3 - Performance Information...
...D. Landing
The Landing should always be 3-point.
Brakes can be used fairly hard, if necessary, almost regardless of wind strength and direction.
Ailerons should be used to assist keep into-wind wing down when on the ground if necessary."
I'm not suggesting the manual is the only way to land a Pitts, because I've seen many pilots fly it differently, but if you are going to do something different from the flight manual I suggest you make sure you fully understand why. If the answer is "because I was taught that way" and it was never otherwise explained to you than that is probably a good example of what Chuck is suggesting with problems in tail-wheel instruction.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of my tailwheel time is in a 185 that I have had since 2000. I primarily fly in a mountain environment from the Sierra Nevada in Calif and Nevada north to and within Alaska. So some is near sea level and some is at high density altitudes (Nevada and Idaho).
When I experience crosswinds, there is often mechanical turbulence with updrafts and down drafts. I choose to do a tail low wheel landing and roll it on. The plane has 40 flaps, and that is my normal flap landing configuration, but not when the wind is a gusty crosswind at higher density altitudes. Under those conditions I use 20 flaps for less drag and a better sink recovery with power. With full flaps, the 300HP, at times, may not be enough to arrest a big sinker in the mountains...even with a Sportsman cuff, ART WingX and Micro Aero VG's.
The home runway is above 5,000' and only 1,400' long. It is also narrow, so with all things combined, I choose the tail low wheel landing, rolling it up on the mains for better forward visibility to keep it on the center of the runway. Brakes and rudder as required to maintain directional control. As the tail drops, I retract the flaps to improve airflow over the tail. The VG's also assist in directional control.
Now, if I choose to do 3-point under those conditions, there is a good possibility that a gust will lighten the aircraft and create issues with directional control as there will not be much weight on the mains for directional braking and the tail might also be blanked-out. I have even gone airborne again resulting in a go around. I found through experience that it is better to have a lower angle of attack (tail up) for better forward visibility over the nose, enhanced wheel braking and improved flow over the tail for better directional control (retracting the flaps as the tail settles). Given the short runway (and the minor obstacles at both ends), I can't "play it" and work it down. I have to go with the high percentage success configuration and technique that has worked for me in my airplane. On those rare days when there is no wind, its a joy to come floating in, a bit on the slow side with full flaps and do a graceful 3-point.
All of the above is done with a crab final, I might add. There are aircraft types that demand specific landing techniques and configurations, so for those, how you must do it is pretty cut and dried. The correct way in one may be the wrong way in another. Read, get a good instructor, ask questions, experiment within your own limitations and practice as much as you can afford under different conditions, realizing that what you learn in one aircraft may not necessarily transfer to another.
When I experience crosswinds, there is often mechanical turbulence with updrafts and down drafts. I choose to do a tail low wheel landing and roll it on. The plane has 40 flaps, and that is my normal flap landing configuration, but not when the wind is a gusty crosswind at higher density altitudes. Under those conditions I use 20 flaps for less drag and a better sink recovery with power. With full flaps, the 300HP, at times, may not be enough to arrest a big sinker in the mountains...even with a Sportsman cuff, ART WingX and Micro Aero VG's.
The home runway is above 5,000' and only 1,400' long. It is also narrow, so with all things combined, I choose the tail low wheel landing, rolling it up on the mains for better forward visibility to keep it on the center of the runway. Brakes and rudder as required to maintain directional control. As the tail drops, I retract the flaps to improve airflow over the tail. The VG's also assist in directional control.
Now, if I choose to do 3-point under those conditions, there is a good possibility that a gust will lighten the aircraft and create issues with directional control as there will not be much weight on the mains for directional braking and the tail might also be blanked-out. I have even gone airborne again resulting in a go around. I found through experience that it is better to have a lower angle of attack (tail up) for better forward visibility over the nose, enhanced wheel braking and improved flow over the tail for better directional control (retracting the flaps as the tail settles). Given the short runway (and the minor obstacles at both ends), I can't "play it" and work it down. I have to go with the high percentage success configuration and technique that has worked for me in my airplane. On those rare days when there is no wind, its a joy to come floating in, a bit on the slow side with full flaps and do a graceful 3-point.
All of the above is done with a crab final, I might add. There are aircraft types that demand specific landing techniques and configurations, so for those, how you must do it is pretty cut and dried. The correct way in one may be the wrong way in another. Read, get a good instructor, ask questions, experiment within your own limitations and practice as much as you can afford under different conditions, realizing that what you learn in one aircraft may not necessarily transfer to another.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the above is done with a crab final, I might add. There are aircraft types that demand specific landing techniques and configurations, so for those, how you must do it is pretty cut and dried. The correct way in one may be the wrong way in another. Read, get a good instructor, ask questions, experiment within your own limitations and practice as much as you can afford under different conditions, realizing that what you learn in one aircraft may not necessarily transfer to another.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've a couple of hundred hours in tailwheel - mostly Chipmunks, Citabria/Decathlon and Pitts S2A/S2B/S2C, plus a couple of hours in a Tiger Moth and an Extra 300L.
I was taught to 3-point all of them, except the Tiger which I was told should be wheeled on, due to the relatively ineffective ailerons and rudder. I preferred to 3-point the Chippie but after a few years of flying Pitts with a much higher sink, kept on coming in a little too fast, resulting in a wheeler, after which the tail would drop as speed washed off.
However, I should not recommend a wheeler for any Pitts. It can be done, but unless you're very smooth the high speed required to offset the sink rate and make it a wheeler, will tend to result in the bungie gear throwing you back into the air. A 3-pointer helps kill the lift and keeps you on the ground, though even experienced pilots will often get a little skip before the aircraft settles. You just have to get used to the [lack of] sight picture, and steer the aircraft down the runway as you land, by peripheral vision.
In crosswind conditions, the rudder and ailerons in the Pitts are powerful enough to let you bring the aircraft in with a 2-pointer, tail and windward mainwheel, with the windward wing low. As the speed comes off the downwind gear will lower and then you can have fun pedalling hard on the rudders/brakes to keep it on the centreline.
I've landed a Pitts a few times with greater than 20 knots crosswind component, and the windward wing down technique will stop you drifting; you don't want to try a crab in those conditions as by the time you've straightened up you'll have drifted halfway across the runway.
I was taught to 3-point all of them, except the Tiger which I was told should be wheeled on, due to the relatively ineffective ailerons and rudder. I preferred to 3-point the Chippie but after a few years of flying Pitts with a much higher sink, kept on coming in a little too fast, resulting in a wheeler, after which the tail would drop as speed washed off.
However, I should not recommend a wheeler for any Pitts. It can be done, but unless you're very smooth the high speed required to offset the sink rate and make it a wheeler, will tend to result in the bungie gear throwing you back into the air. A 3-pointer helps kill the lift and keeps you on the ground, though even experienced pilots will often get a little skip before the aircraft settles. You just have to get used to the [lack of] sight picture, and steer the aircraft down the runway as you land, by peripheral vision.
In crosswind conditions, the rudder and ailerons in the Pitts are powerful enough to let you bring the aircraft in with a 2-pointer, tail and windward mainwheel, with the windward wing low. As the speed comes off the downwind gear will lower and then you can have fun pedalling hard on the rudders/brakes to keep it on the centreline.
I've landed a Pitts a few times with greater than 20 knots crosswind component, and the windward wing down technique will stop you drifting; you don't want to try a crab in those conditions as by the time you've straightened up you'll have drifted halfway across the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Terrier A61 is almost possible to wheel on as it's so tail heavy. It needs to 3 pointed to land properly. Wheeling it just leaves you bouncing down the runway and weather cocking back and forth. It can be 3 pointed in very sting crosswinds with practice.
I fly a tailwheel twin turbine for a living and that is only ever wheeled on. We use reverse thrust against forward yoke to lower the tail.
I fly a tailwheel twin turbine for a living and that is only ever wheeled on. We use reverse thrust against forward yoke to lower the tail.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Pitts observation above. I've never flown one but witnessed many, many landings on Barton's rough turf. Never saw a really tidy Pitts landing yet - there's always a hint of mains/tail/mains/tail bouncing in the roll out. Unsurprising in a short-coupled aeroplane on rough ground with a relatively high landing speed, I suppose.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
I don't think you will ever see a tidy Pitts landing, it is just that sort of aircraft and considered by those on the warbird fraternity to be one of the hardest taildragers to land.
I have always been of the three point school but this is because I have flown aircraft such as the DHC-1 & Extra 200 & 300 and these aircraft are quite happy with the three point technique, some older types don't like this as they tip stall in the three point attitude usually with very unfortunate results, hence one always wheels these aircraft onto the ground.
I have always been of the three point school but this is because I have flown aircraft such as the DHC-1 & Extra 200 & 300 and these aircraft are quite happy with the three point technique, some older types don't like this as they tip stall in the three point attitude usually with very unfortunate results, hence one always wheels these aircraft onto the ground.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is anyone who is being trained to fly a tail wheel airplane "" MUST '' be equally proficient performing both three point landings and wheel landings.
If they are not they were improperly trained.
Can we all agree with that?
If they are not they were improperly trained.
Can we all agree with that?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really, Chuck.....
We teach people to fly the aircraft they are in, not every aircraft they might ever fly. We therefore teach the technique that is appropriate for the particular aircrafts handling characteristics and if they move to a different type we teach the appropriate method for that.
We do not teach people to 3 point the Dornier as the correct technique for it is to wheel it on. We do not teach people to wheel land the Terrier as it is not the correct landing technique for that aircraft.
I am quite happy to sign someone off for the Terrier without teaching a wheeler. If the student moves to something that needs further skill development and new technique then I am more then happy to do so. Therefore to suggest that someone who is not trained in both methods is improperly trained is incorrect.......
We teach people to fly the aircraft they are in, not every aircraft they might ever fly. We therefore teach the technique that is appropriate for the particular aircrafts handling characteristics and if they move to a different type we teach the appropriate method for that.
We do not teach people to 3 point the Dornier as the correct technique for it is to wheel it on. We do not teach people to wheel land the Terrier as it is not the correct landing technique for that aircraft.
I am quite happy to sign someone off for the Terrier without teaching a wheeler. If the student moves to something that needs further skill development and new technique then I am more then happy to do so. Therefore to suggest that someone who is not trained in both methods is improperly trained is incorrect.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.K. I guess I am on the wrong track in my thinking.
When checking out a licensed pilot on a given tail wheel airplane the method of landing a given airplane is what one should teach.
I must apologize for my expectations being to high, I did not take into consideration the large number of tail wheel airplanes out there that are limited to only being able to use one method of landing.
The real fault may be with the way these different kinds of skills are taught, what is needed is more clarity in the limitations of these different airplanes when signing out the student. ( competent on tail wheel airplanes for three point landings only. )
For instance when signing out a pilot on say an airplane such as the Terrier it should be clear that the student was only taught three point landings.
That will protect the instructor in case the student wrecks the airplane trying to wheel land it, as the student was not taught how to wheel land.
I think it is time for me to take up another hobby as flying has become far to difficult for someone like me who seems to be stuck back in the stone age of aviation..
When checking out a licensed pilot on a given tail wheel airplane the method of landing a given airplane is what one should teach.
I must apologize for my expectations being to high, I did not take into consideration the large number of tail wheel airplanes out there that are limited to only being able to use one method of landing.
The real fault may be with the way these different kinds of skills are taught, what is needed is more clarity in the limitations of these different airplanes when signing out the student. ( competent on tail wheel airplanes for three point landings only. )
For instance when signing out a pilot on say an airplane such as the Terrier it should be clear that the student was only taught three point landings.
That will protect the instructor in case the student wrecks the airplane trying to wheel land it, as the student was not taught how to wheel land.
I think it is time for me to take up another hobby as flying has become far to difficult for someone like me who seems to be stuck back in the stone age of aviation..
Chuck,
I think the ideal is to ensure that tailwheel training is done on an aeroplane that can be both wheeled and 3-pointed, and that the pilot as a result has competence in both, and therefore little difficulty moving to any tailwheel aeroplane, as long as he/she flies it according to the POH.
No harm in aiming for the best / optimum solution.
FBW
I think the ideal is to ensure that tailwheel training is done on an aeroplane that can be both wheeled and 3-pointed, and that the pilot as a result has competence in both, and therefore little difficulty moving to any tailwheel aeroplane, as long as he/she flies it according to the POH.
No harm in aiming for the best / optimum solution.
FBW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
I think the ideal is to ensure that tail wheel training is done on an aeroplane that can be both wheeled and 3-pointed, and that the pilot as a result has competence in both, and therefore little difficulty moving to any tail wheel aeroplane, as long as he/she flies it according to the POH.
I think the ideal is to ensure that tail wheel training is done on an aeroplane that can be both wheeled and 3-pointed, and that the pilot as a result has competence in both, and therefore little difficulty moving to any tail wheel aeroplane, as long as he/she flies it according to the POH.
For some reason I am unable to grasp the belief that it is just to difficult to teach anyone a simple skill like being able to perform more than method of landing an airplane.
Sure there are some airplanes that are better suited to either three pointing or wheel landing, however " most " tail wheel airplanes are capable of landing either way.
Personally I can only recall two airplanes that I was not comfortable landing either way.
The C117.....I never tried to three point it...because it lacked the rudder effectiveness of the DC3.
The Turbine powered Grumman Goose....I never tried to three point it because it lacked rudder effectiveness in the three point attitude and using the engines for yaw control was problematic due to spool up delay.
I don't think you will ever see a tidy Pitts landing ...
I instruct in a Decathlon (spring Al gear so very easy to bounce) and I find that many inexperienced people have enough trouble learning and mastering just one new skill so I usually teach just 3 pointers then do wheelers with them after they have some solo time (exception being those moving onto other types in which case they get both).
My colleague here insists on doing both 3 pointers and wheelers initially for all - on occasion when I have flown with these people a little while later I find that they are a long way short of mastering wheelers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My colleague here insists on doing both 3 pointers and wheelers initially for all - on occasion when I have flown with these people a little while later I find that they are a long way short of mastering wheelers.
Interesting.....
......what exactly was their problem doing wheel landings?
......poor judgement of the flare height???
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
While I agree with you in theory but there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude, so those pilots who only fly such types simply have to use only the wheeler technique.
...there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude...
I'm with you on this Chuck. A tailwheel conversion isn't complete unless you teach people both techniques, and most types on which people do tailwheel training are happy being wheeled, or three pointed, but we have to accept that there are some types that are not. In my view, you cannot complete the required training in those types, and you have to do the alternative landing technique in another type.
MJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
...there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude...
What types are they?
...there are some vintage types that can't be landed three point because the wings tip stall before the aircraft reaches the three point attitude...
What types are they?
I'm with you on this Chuck. A tailwheel conversion isn't complete unless you teach people both techniques, and most types on which people do tailwheel training are happy being wheeled, or three pointed,
but we have to accept that there are some types that are not. In my view, you cannot complete the required training in those types, and you have to do the alternative landing technique in another type.
MJ
MJ