I know, I know ... not this again. Well, a buddy of mine just bought a 150hp Champ after 30+ years of flying trikes and never owning a taildragger. He asked whether I land 2 pt or 3 pt. After a couple of seconds of my neurons crashing in confusion, I said "Well ... it all depends". I told him that I normally land my L4 3 pt, but my Stearman always 2 pt. He immediately countered with a "why?" After a long explanation of aerodynamic reasons, cross wind, ruder control, etc., I thought a bit and said "You know what, it really boils down to what you feel more comfortable with!"

What's your preference, and what would you have told him?

PatínLoco wrote:I know, I know ... not this again. Well, a buddy of mine just bought a 150hp Champ after 30+ years of flying trikes and never owning a taildragger. He asked whether I land 2 pt or 3 pt. After a couple of seconds of my neurons crashing in confusion, I said "Well ... it all depends". I told him that I normally land my L4 3 pt, but my Stearman always 2 pt. He immediately countered with a "why?" After a long explanation of aerodynamic reasons, cross wind, ruder control, etc., I thought a bit and said "You know what, it really boils down to what you feel more comfortable with!"

What's your preference, and what would you have told him?

I agree with you, I mostly make that decision about 3' in the air every landing!!
Tho most of my 3 point landings go 3-2-3??
Unless I'm slow enough to make a proper 3 or 2 point landing

I prefer the term "wheel landing" as it's possible to 2-point with the tailwheel on the ground while correcting for crosswind.

All depends I liked 3 point best during the first part of training cause they where easier... and I could land shorter. then I started using a wheel landing that was almost a 3 point and using brakes to keep the tail in the air with full elevator. Things got real short after that. Either way land as slow as possible.

PatinLoco, tell your friend not to think too much about it now. He has to learn both wheel landings and 3 pointers equally well. My experience is that once you really master both techniques you will know which one to use when.

Just my .02

Zzz wrote:I prefer the term "wheel landing" as it's possible to 2-point with the tailwheel on the ground while correcting for crosswind.

Try that 3 point when you have to use those 2 wheels??

Huh? 3-point = tail on the ground. Wheel landing = tail up off the ground. Never liked the term "2 point" because which 2 points?

I was a 300 hour Cherokee pilot when I started tail wheel training. At first I could only make wheel landings. I think it was because of the habit of touching the mains and relaxing the yoke pressure to put the nose wheel down. My instructor made me do 3 point landings only until I could do them well. I liked the 3 point better. I don't do wheel landings now except just once in a while to keep in practice.

A good pilot should decide which landing method, 3-point or wheel is best for each and every landing. Know how to both well and have both in your toolbox.

If you are too far in one camp or the other, you'll never be fully equipped for every situation...

Lots of different aircraft types on this board. Each airplane is a bit different, some techniques for one do not work well with another model. So you can argue this ad nauseum. For me, on my 185; Wheel landings on hard surface, 3 points on soft. On the Birddog, wheel landings in crosswinds, rudder was, well, inadequate on 3 points with a crosswind. Probably just me.

Sorry about using the term 2-point landing instead of wheel landing. It's a matter of translation, since in Spanish we use 3 pt and 2 pt. My language blunder. But, thanks for your opinions. I agree that to each it's own, what works best for you in that particular aircraft in those particular circumstances.

PatínLoco wrote:I know, I know ... not this again... What's your preference, and what would you have told him?

I'm thrilled you resurfaced this. I've been wanting to, but now I don't have to be the villain. Thanks.

So anyone who knows me, or has read my pontifications on this subject knows I'm an ardent purveyor of 3-point landings (I include tail low wheelies). Especially in Stearmans, I've helped recover too many Stearman wrecks that occurred during wheel landings.

Anyway, don't tell anyone but I found a place for wheel landings. Yea I know, I was shocked too.

This epiphany took place while I was in Alaska pre-buy flying my SQ-2. The first day was all about 3 point and Valdez landings (one point drop-ins). The second day Randy (the SQ-2 builder/owner) asked me if I could do wheel landings. Sure, I just hardly ever do them.

Randy explained that while 3 point and Valdez landing were fine for gravel bars and relatively smooth surfaces, wheelies are the only way to land rough terrain, like logs and big rocks (neither of which I would land the 185 on which explains why I never considered them before) in order to protect the tailwheel. I could see that with the places the SQ-2 can land this made perfect sense.

So now I would wheel land the little gravel bars scattered on the Knick. I can do that. In my defense I have to say that the engine in the SQ-2 is set very low, enough that at level flight attitude I see no cowling at all so have no sense of how close the prop might be to the ground. And since it wasn't mine yet I was leery (read scared) of pushing the nose too far forward.

Shameless plug for my SQ-2


It was actually quite hilarious (and frustrating). Randy's conversation went something like this. "Okay looking good. Your four foot high, four foot. Push the nose over. Okay three foot. Push the nose over more. Three foot. Push the nose over." And woosh we were back over water again. This happened over and over and over and over and over until we reached the glacier.

I was really frustrated but Randy wasn't about to give up. "Okay, forget about landing. Can you fly the plane onto the bar and then just high speed taxi it along?" Sure, I can do that. So we took off, flew back to the beginning of the gravel bars and tried this new technique.

"Okay looking good. Now get the plane on the bar. Push the nose over. Two foot. Two foot." And woosh we were back over water again. But at the next bar I got the wheels on just before I ran out of bar, and each subsequent bar got better, till I was bar hoping with the best of them (in my mind anyway).

Since Randy is going to "Bust My Balls" when we bring the SQ-2 down I've included wheel landings in my 185, as well as "wheel bagging" river bottoms in preparation.

This is all a long winded way of my advice to your friend. "Learn both, then do what you like and what's best for your mission and the conditions." Helpful huh?!

Ray Maule and the skinny Maule operating handbook suggest wheel landings are a no-no for Maule aircraft. Despite that, I often do them in my MX7-180. Still, I agree with the rest of the crowd that the type of landing selected needs to be based on the circumstances unique to each landing site and conditions. Learn both and be prepared to use both.

Cstolaircraft made a good point that we need to be slow in order to touch down where we intend. If we are near stall speed at the numbers and the crosswind is not too much of an issue, we can hold the slow, pitched up attitude to touchdown or push forward on the stick to wheel it. A wheel landing in a crosswind is a one point, and works the best for this condition. Ground speed needs to be as slow as possible for either technique. Ground loops damage airplanes that are traveling too fast on the ground on one, two, or three wheels.

Barnstormer, your new plane is awesome!!

This topic is timeless and immortal and will continue being flogged until they outlaw taildraggers. I used to get annoyed at repeat topics, but anymore, who cares? This is all hangar flying.

I'm of the opinion (formed in my modest flying career) that anyone who says a particular aircraft should only be landed one style or the other, at least in the light aircraft realm, is full of beans. It usually means they tried it one way one time and had a bad experience, never to try again. Of course it was the aircraft's fault.

Zzz is right. The design of the airplane is to fly.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ speaks truth....................................

I posted this this other day but think we need a version of it about wheelies versus granny plops, thats right three points are like an old woman on a pot, plop

Hitler ONLY wheel lands his RV-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETrhaOj ... ata_player