Taildragger three point vs wheel landings - Cultural?
Can't speak from personal experience, but have read that certain types are not conducive to three pointing due wing drop at the stall - any of the De havillands with pointy wing tips (Comet Racer, Dragon Rapide), and even the venerable DC-3. Perhaps Chuck can expand on the latter.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 64
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jodel D-120, during the 350hrs or so I had it.
I landed my Jodel D-120 in three-point on grass.
On concrete, I preferred the wheel it on in a tail down configuration, then push forward to keep it level and let it roll out till the tail came down.
This gave a little more speed and control during the flare and roll out.
In a D-120 the brakes are odd.
You have to release the rudder padals to go to the brake pedals.
A "foot danse" that could be "tricky" in X-wind conditions.
I sold my D-120, and 2 weeks later the new owner put it on its nose on a grass field.
Man, I was so angry, because I loved that little plane that had taken me all over Europe. Best bang for the buck I ever had, and with 120 liters of fuel a nice cruise speed and range too.
On concrete, I preferred the wheel it on in a tail down configuration, then push forward to keep it level and let it roll out till the tail came down.
This gave a little more speed and control during the flare and roll out.
In a D-120 the brakes are odd.
You have to release the rudder padals to go to the brake pedals.
A "foot danse" that could be "tricky" in X-wind conditions.
I sold my D-120, and 2 weeks later the new owner put it on its nose on a grass field.
Man, I was so angry, because I loved that little plane that had taken me all over Europe. Best bang for the buck I ever had, and with 120 liters of fuel a nice cruise speed and range too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trained in the turbine DC3 by Basler's training pilot, who is a magnificent instructor (cool and relaxed). I was trained to always wheel land it. We did many stalls in that aircraft, and yes, it was a wing drop which I would rather avoid close to the ground. I doubt you'd get it that stalled during a landing anyway, but it wheel lands so nicely, that seems to be the way to go.
My flying boat also responds very nicely to being wheel landed, which no one taught me, I just figured out on my own after fighting to make three point landings seem graceful, and loosing!
My flying boat also responds very nicely to being wheel landed, which no one taught me, I just figured out on my own after fighting to make three point landings seem graceful, and loosing!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been flying my friend's 172 taildragger recently. After trying both three pointing it, then wheel landing, I certainly find that wheel landing results in consistently nicer landings.
One of my experienced pilot friends is passionate that taildraggers should be three pointed. Another learned friend tells me that you'll get better landings by wheel landing, but you must be more precise. That seems to be my experience too...
I'm really liking that I can prevent any bouncing by lifting the tail once the mains are on, and reducing the AoA of the wing. I also like that the tail wheel, when it finally contacts, might be going 20 MPH more slowly - less wear and tear!
I have his 180 HP PA-18 type amateur built to fly next, so I'll be trying both ways with it too...
Is there any passion here, one way or the other?
One of my experienced pilot friends is passionate that taildraggers should be three pointed. Another learned friend tells me that you'll get better landings by wheel landing, but you must be more precise. That seems to be my experience too...
I'm really liking that I can prevent any bouncing by lifting the tail once the mains are on, and reducing the AoA of the wing. I also like that the tail wheel, when it finally contacts, might be going 20 MPH more slowly - less wear and tear!
I have his 180 HP PA-18 type amateur built to fly next, so I'll be trying both ways with it too...
Is there any passion here, one way or the other?
Drain Bamaged
I also flew Beech 18 (1000hrs) which I always wheel landed too.
As said previously is should depend on the aircraft type.
Also I've heard that back in the time when the French Air Force had B-18, they were taught to 3 point them...Always!
I think I would have felt like dancing on top of a needle trying it.
I also like that the tail wheel, when it finally contacts, might be going 20 MPH more slowly - less wear and tear!
So the CTP at my gliding club has decreed that we should do "low-energy wheel landings" - that is hold off until nearly the three-point attitude, wait for the mains to touch and then quickly move the stick forward to plant the mains and raise the tail, at the same time dumping the flaps.
It took me quite a while to get the hang of it - I wasn't being aggressive enough with the stick movement and was bouncing all over the place. It feels completely unnatural and goes against everything I was taught.
My roll outs are much longer than before. I still prefer three-pointers.
Talking of three-pointers, mauld posted this lovely video on AH&N, of three Mustangs that ends with a textbook three-point landing:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard some pilots state that if you three point, you have the tailwheel on the surface to help you maintain directional control. I was never quite sure this was the case. Yesterday, I found more evidence to support my belief that the rudder is actually the much more effective means then the tailwheel. I have installed an MT reversing propeller on my taildragger. In getting used to it, I'm getting more comfortable applying lots of reverse thrust in the latter stage of the ground roll (airspeed and RPM sensors prevent application of reverse just after touchdown - as it should be.
What I found was that with the tailwheel nicely planted, the use of lots of reverse "stole" the airflow from the tail, and the rudder suddenly became very ineffective. Even though the tailwheel was nicely down, steering was very demanding at the moment the reverse had effect. I selected forward again, and the rudder was effective.
With this added insight, I further believe that it does not improve steering to have the tailwheel on the runway, if there is still enough airflow over the rudder to make it effective. I have found in all taildraggers I have flown, that if I have enough elevator available to hold the tailwheel off, I also have enough rudder control to steer.
What I found was that with the tailwheel nicely planted, the use of lots of reverse "stole" the airflow from the tail, and the rudder suddenly became very ineffective. Even though the tailwheel was nicely down, steering was very demanding at the moment the reverse had effect. I selected forward again, and the rudder was effective.
With this added insight, I further believe that it does not improve steering to have the tailwheel on the runway, if there is still enough airflow over the rudder to make it effective. I have found in all taildraggers I have flown, that if I have enough elevator available to hold the tailwheel off, I also have enough rudder control to steer.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always known how to do both and teach both, generally I three point but use wheelers in crossswinds and gusty conditions, interesting with the RV, taught both on the 8 with no problem, when we got the 7 I initially found it was difficult to wheel on, this was the case until we did a 50hr check and pumped the tyres to the correct pressure, once that was done the 7 was fine to wheel on, so definitely a case of knowing your aircraft!
Reading Steps remarks about keeping the tail up, I always understood that the main point of keeping the tail up was to keep the airflow over the rudder as long as possible, once you run out of down elevator, that is when you also lose the airflow over the rudder and is when you need the tail on the ground with stick back. Not sure about reverse thrust though, never really seen it on a single!
Reading Steps remarks about keeping the tail up, I always understood that the main point of keeping the tail up was to keep the airflow over the rudder as long as possible, once you run out of down elevator, that is when you also lose the airflow over the rudder and is when you need the tail on the ground with stick back. Not sure about reverse thrust though, never really seen it on a single!
Step Turn,
Surely, when you apply reverse thrust in a single engine aircraft the centre of backward thrust is right at the front of the aircraft. This must add hugely to the directional instability already produced by having the CG behind the main wheels. I am not surprised that you found directional control difficult.
Surely, when you apply reverse thrust in a single engine aircraft the centre of backward thrust is right at the front of the aircraft. This must add hugely to the directional instability already produced by having the CG behind the main wheels. I am not surprised that you found directional control difficult.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
centre of backward thrust is right at the front of the aircraft.
When flying the Harvard I was equally comfortable to do either style of landing, while I preferred 3 pointers in the Cub. But when flying a type such as a Europa mono-wheel with no differential brakes and only a steerable tailwheel, there is no choice other than to get the tailwheel down simultaneously with the main, especially in a crosswind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But when flying a type such as a Europa mono-wheel with no differential brakes and only a steerable tailwheel, there is no choice other than to get the tailwheel down simultaneously with the main, especially in a crosswind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0et96eefLM
It has a really effective rudder, as also are the other surfaces powerful and effective. But the stated crosswind limit is 15 knots, which should be well respected. Many pilots of this type of aircraft won't risk a crosswind component in double figures and several have converted their aircraft to tricycle configuration.
The distance between the mono main-wheel and the steerable tailwheel is short in the early version, which can result in quick excursions left or right during the landing roll as the speed reduces and the rudder loses effectiveness.
Even the later models with extended tailwheels only partially solved the problem of directional instability on landing. Even so, many mono-wheel examples are to be found and those who feel that they have mastered such quirkiness are very happy with the extra performance and load carrying capability afforded by the mono.
Gliders use a similar undercarriage arrangement, but their long wings have extra inertia which helps with straightness on landing.
It has a really effective rudder, as also are the other surfaces powerful and effective. But the stated crosswind limit is 15 knots, which should be well respected. Many pilots of this type of aircraft won't risk a crosswind component in double figures and several have converted their aircraft to tricycle configuration.
The distance between the mono main-wheel and the steerable tailwheel is short in the early version, which can result in quick excursions left or right during the landing roll as the speed reduces and the rudder loses effectiveness.
Even the later models with extended tailwheels only partially solved the problem of directional instability on landing. Even so, many mono-wheel examples are to be found and those who feel that they have mastered such quirkiness are very happy with the extra performance and load carrying capability afforded by the mono.
Gliders use a similar undercarriage arrangement, but their long wings have extra inertia which helps with straightness on landing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The distance between the mono main-wheel and the steerable tailwheel is short in the early version, which can result in quick excursions left or right during the landing roll as the speed reduces and the rudder loses effectiveness.
But it takes me back to my preference for wheel landing when the type and configuration will allow it, knowing that the tailwheel steering is doing little anyway at any speed at which the tail can be held off.
The Tiger Club impressed on me the importance of wheeling-on both the Tiger Moth and the Stampe if there was any crosswind at all, but that it was a little less important with the Stampe due to its tailwheel against the Tiger's skid.
The rationale was to use the rudder to maintain positive control in yaw throughout the landing and subsequent ground run in order to avoid groundlooping. Taildraggers were designed when all airfields were aerodromes and you always landed into wind. Then three pointing was the norm. As soon as fixed runway directions forced out of wind landings to become common wheeling on had to be introduced as a normal procedure.
My Stearman instructor said much the same.
The rationale was to use the rudder to maintain positive control in yaw throughout the landing and subsequent ground run in order to avoid groundlooping. Taildraggers were designed when all airfields were aerodromes and you always landed into wind. Then three pointing was the norm. As soon as fixed runway directions forced out of wind landings to become common wheeling on had to be introduced as a normal procedure.
My Stearman instructor said much the same.