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!

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.

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).

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.

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.

that paragraph contains some very sound advice.:ok:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.......

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.. :ugh:

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 agree completely, however the reality is there are a lot of pilots out there who for whatever reason believe that flying a tail wheel airplane is an advanced form of flying requiring exceptional skills.

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 see quite a few and most of my landings in a Pitts I claim to be tidy as well. Like Jack, I only 3 point them (and that is all I teach in the Pitts) but I know a handful of people who do tidy wheelers in them.
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.

Interesting.....


......what exactly was their problem doing wheel landings?

......poor judgement of the flare height???

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.

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:ok:

Yes what types are they and if the wheels touch the ground as the tips stall what is the problem?

You and I grasp this concept but it seems a few others do not.

Exactly. :ok:

Hmmm, Getting taught how to do both 3 point and wheel landings as part of your initial tailwheel conversion.

This debate seems more like a solution in search of a problem.:confused: Personally I don't see the issue in the real world. Everyone I know who does tailwheel checkouts teaches both.:ok:

The fact is tailwheel training aircraft are not easy to find. We generally train on owners aircraft. You tailor the training to the aircraft. You don't try to teach inappropriate techniques in order to achieve some sort of sense of completeness.

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ?

It's like all aspects of flying. The more skills you have in your 'bag', the more complete pilot you are and the less likely you are to face a situation where your 'bag' is devoid of the required skill.

That's why I advocate aerobatics for all pilots so they'll have a bag full of handling skills, even if they only ever fly an A330 where even in that aeroplane it might be needed :eek: . And of course things like recovery from unusual attitudes, and stall and spin recovery, are second nature to the aeros pilot who does it by 'feel' rather than by numbers.

Being competent at 3-point and wheel landings makes you more of a 'complete' pilot than the wheel-only or 3-point only pilot.

Every tailwheel aeroplane I've flown (and there've been a few!) is capable of either technique. But if I ever get to fly a Dragon Rapide I'll no doubt be instructed never to attempt to 3-point it because of its tip-stall tendencies. The fact that I can do either only adds to my skills 'bag'. That's got to be good!

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ? Quote:

There is only one way to land a tricycle aircraft, mains first. Taildraggers are different,they can be landed two ways, so I agree with Chuck, until you can land the thing either way it is not complete. You could land a trike flap less or full flaps, slight difference there? Do you stop learning once you can get it down with full flaps?

In addition, the tailwheel differences training qualifies you to fly all taildraggers, not just one type. A Tailwheel differences course therefore has to be non type specific and cover all relevant techniques. I generally use several aircraft types to teach "tailwheel differences" so that the student goes away with a broad appreciation of the required techniques.

Problem is of course that the regulator never specified any syllabus or even learning objectives for this training so any old FI can just do whatever he likes! Not a great situation!

Happy landings

3 Point (and Wheelers!!)

Ratings should stop you flying types that require training you have not had, but there should be no problem getting instruction appropriate to your aircraft. I think it is fine to learn only the technique you need for the aircraft you want to fly and I think it should be up to the pilot to understand their own limitations if training was provided in this way and for them to seek further training for other aircraft if the need arises. Otherwise we would need ratings for individual aircraft.

Gaining a rating on an aircraft you aren't going to fly for the sake of ticking boxes seems unnecessary to me. Inexperienced pilots are not generally brave enough to go fly something new without specific instruction or a briefing from someone that knows that aircraft first and I think this may be one of the cases where pilots in reality are more sensible than the legislators.

The point is, this is not a type conversion, it's a generic tailwheel conversion.


MJ:ok:

Same here, someday I should sit down and see if I can remember all the different ones I flew over the years.

Just off the top of my memory I can think of a few that were more demanding that most.

Pitts:

Powell Racer:

Grumman Turbo Goose:

Grumman Widgeon:

Republic Sea Bee:

That is all I can think of right now.

I can not think of any that could not be landed either way, although some were far easier to wheel on than three point.

I guess not everyone is a Skygod and can land every type using either method?

I have already outlined 2 aircraft that can't be landed either way, one requires a three pointer and the other one does not permit a three pointer. Out of the many types I have flown over the years I could produce a longer list if I was actually bothered.

But as as I have already said, teach them to fly the aircraft they are in, tailor the training for that aircraft. If they move to another type that requires a different technique then teach them that. it might be a 'generic' tailwheel sign off but pilots are generally smart enough to know they will need further differences if moving to a different type and if there is one thing for certain the reality of tailwheel flying is there is no such thing as 'generic'.....

bose-x

That was the point I was trying to get across in my earlier post, so if I only fly the P-51 that requires a wheeler landing why would the training not be complete if I don't fly over tailwheel aircraft.

Should I wish to fly another tailwheel type then of course have the appropriate training and techniques taught.

I have not seen anyone here having any problem with this concept, as long as the instructor clearly outlines the limitations there can not be any problem as long as the trainee does not try something they are not competent in.

I fail to understand how a check out in an airplane that is specific to that airplane using only one method of landing ( three point or wheel landing. ) can be considered " generic " unless my understanding of generic is flawed.


Tailwheel airplanes with some rare exceptions can be landed in two methods and if the student has not been taught both methods said student has not been given the proper training to be given a tail wheel endorsement such as the FAA requires.

As you are in Canada and I am in the UK and not teaching for FAA ratings its possibly a moot point.

I stand by my earlier comments with regard to EASA requirements. We can't really argue apples and oranges.....

Bose-x airplanes fly under the same laws of aerodynamics and physics regardless of what regulatory area they happen to be in, my comments and opinions are formed around how airplanes fly and not where.

I can understand you maybe not being ecstatic with EASA however for whatever reason EASA seems to have the power to regulate a lot of changes....thankfully I quit flying before I had to be to concerned with their new rules.

Is the elevator effective enough to lift the tail wheel off the ground during the take off or does it fly off from the three point attitude?

It requires full forward stick and then it pretty much three points off the ground. To get it slow enough to attempt a wheeler without bouncing down the runway the tail just slams down usually meaning a tail first landing and the resulting kangaroo down the runway. We teach them to touch the mains a fraction before the tail to smooth this out, so I suppose they are getting the wheeler you want.... ;)

The Dornier manual advises against doing a three point landing and with several thousand landings in it I understand perfectly why!! We use fly beta on approach and transition to full ground beta on touch down, this requires foreword yoke against beta in order to stop the tail smashing down and ripping the mounts.

At the end of the day it is horses for courses, if I am teaching in an aircraft that is happy in all landing configurations then we cover everything. If it is an aircraft that has strong reasons for using only one method then I think it better we achieve mastery of that method rather than risking damage to the aircraft or undermining the students confidence. If they want to cover alternate methods then we can arrange to do this in an aircraft better suited to the job.

You have to remember that most people in the UK are doing tailwheel training in order to fly a particular aircraft and its that aircraft they want to be taught to fly. Tailoring the training to cover the specific aircraft is much better teaching in my opinion rather than just trying to bludgeon them into learning things that are not relevant for the type?

I am probably done on the discussion now as we are unlikely to agree and while I am not going to try and convince you my way is correct, I get the very distinct feeling that you want to argue the point until I agree with you....... ;)

I own a Beagle A61 Terrier 2, I was taught only to 3 point it.

The tail end is indeed very heavy, I am no weakling but can barely lift it! which, given the Terrier isn't much bigger than a Cub, I found surprising.

However as time went by I heard various accounts from several people, some claiming the Terrier couldn't be wheeled on, others it could, so I decided to try it for myself. On the first occasion there was little, to no crosswind and I chose an 800mt grass strip with a good surface.

To my amazement I had no difficulty at all, I flew a normal approach but a few knots faster, and maybe a tad flatter, I maintained 1400rpm, then having rounded out gently nudged the wheels onto the deck, they touched just as the stall warner sounded, I then closed the throttle and progressively fed in forward stick. After a few more goes I was able to keep the tail up almost down to walking pace, which was very satisfying.

Currently I wouldn't attempt a wheeler on any runway shorter than 600mt as it does consume a lot more runway than 3 pointing, though it is now my preferred method on hard runways. As for wheeler landing my Terrier in a crosswind, I haven't, yet!

Have you tried doing a power off approach and landing from say 100 feet at the normal approach speed, rather than a flat power assisted approach and flare when doing a wheel landing?

That will use up a lot less runway.

This discission highlights the fallacy of a goverment mandated tailwheel endorsement (their fix for failures). I checked out in a tailwheel aircraft before the endorsement was required and was grandfathered as a tailwheel pilot by the FAA. I had no instructor, BTW. That was the late '60's. By government opinion, I should have created an incident or accident by now. Sorry to prove you wrong, bureaucrats.

Pre or post endorsement, one is still (usually) going to get some kind of transition training mandated by whomever owns the aircraft, whether insisted upon by the insurance company or otherwise. I know when I flew the Beaver, I had quite an extensive checkout by the organization who owned them. Would having a tailwheel endorsement (that was never checked, BTW) or not have made a difference in blessing my capabilities to fly that type? I think not. Actually having an endorsement in a specific type to fly taildraggers in general by some governmental body does nothing to really endorse you to be a qualified tailwheel pilot, regardless of type...at least not in my book.

I learned a long time ago that one does not loan his wife, underwear, motorcycle or airplane (particularly a taildragger), and maybe anything with an internal combustion engine, in general, to anyone, including well meaning friends. Its just a bad idea. That's my policy. I do, somewhat hypocritically, accept loans by others if necessary, of some of the above (excluding wives), as I trust myself more than others. So far, the trust is well placed.

Blessings of good karma to all who are in pursuit of good techniques and reputations of dependability...tailwheel or otherwise.

I used to own a Terrier 2 and did a couple of hundred hours in it. Yep the tail is awfully heavy, only aircraft I have cricked my back lifting!

But it will wheel on. I usually three pointed it and it was just 'easier'. But with care it would wheel and roll pretty straight if that was how you started!

The Terrier is not an aircraft that requires great finesse, from memory it requires large amounts of power to change any parameter.

In that it s a little unusual. Lots of older aircraft are a 'bit unusual' but the real requirement is for a pilot to understand that and apply the right technique. This summer I hope to fly an antique with limited pitch authority, it has to be landed with some power, or it has insufficient pitch authority. Knowing this there are no real problems, just have to keep your brain in front of the aircraft and understand how to fly it!

Sounds like a candidate for VG's on the horizontal.