And what about ONE point landings ? Really slow and dragging that ol tail wheel.

Barnstormer wrote:This epiphany took place while I was in Alaska pre-buy flying my SQ-2.

I think it goes without saying, you're going to have to post a Pirep now...

I'll join in on this dead horse flogging again as well. I started one just like a year or so ago when I joined. It got pretty western for a while but was fun.

It never ceases to amaze me how the conversations go. And of course it will never end.
Phil it sounds like you may have been under the Vajdos influence.
Everywhere I go and hang out with pilots I enjoy stirring up this topic. I will say that most every pilot I personally look up to and admire they're skills is severely wheel landing competent. Or maybe I should say they use it much more often because they are severely competent at both.
I do also know some really really good pilots that only 3 pt.
But they don't do much of the type flying that a large group of us enjoy or advocate on here.
5,000 ft pavement landings only, brings a who gives a flip attitude to me in a discussion of which is better.
I learned both. Used both. And found that wheels where the way to go majority of the time for reasons longer than I care to type.
I've asked those older, wiser, or more experienced they're opinion and listened with an open mind. Something we tend not to do a lot when we ask a question.
Amazingly the only ones who have lost credibility with me on this category are the ones who said there is no reason to land a plane any other way than 3 pt. And unfortunately some of those have been friends.
Funny to now that I think about it, they're the only ones who poke fun or raz about it...
Learn em both. Get good with both. Use both. I just think you'll hardly "need" the 3pt unless you just wanna use it. That's my worthless .02 on it.
Maybe I could jot down a few reasons why I think wheelies are better to stir it up a little more and help turn this into a 20 page thread.
One of my buddies has a funny saying he uses when someone asks him if he three points.
He says " yeah I 3 pt, when I f up a wheel landing".

55 Wagon- In fifty years, I have known no crop dusters who use three point nor any boss who would keep a pilot who used them. The only time I have used them is when landing downwind and the tailwheel touched first because of the high nose attitude when using enough power to control the mush. What is your experience? What about Air Tractor and Thrush, which I have flown very little? The rear landing gear seems to extend down quite a bit. They sit almost level, like a trike. In a Stearman with that four inch metal lip on the hopper, you were not able to see any runway with the tail down. Before my first spraying with a Stearman, I asked the old guys how you could see the row you wanted to be in. They laughed and said, "you pick the row out in the turn going into the field." Once you leveled the wing, you no longer saw anything to your front, even using cushions til your helmet touched the bottom of the top wing.

55wagon wrote:....the ones who said there is no reason to land a plane any other way than 3 pt.

I have a recently retired airline captain/flight instructor/relative that says the only reason to wheel land is to "show off". That oughta stoke the fire a bit, haha!

Being a freshly licensed pilot with a tailwheel plane, I've found that my wheelies tend to be smoother than my 3 points. I'm sure it's mostly due to experience (or lack thereof) though. I'll just keep practicing- there are worse ways to spend my time

Landing on a paved airstrip the other day, I made the, for me, very rare decision to wheel land. The reason was I am now on my wheel skis and the Airstreaks are put away for the winter. I could care less about the cheap and long wearing 6:00 tires now installed. When on the pricey Airstreaks every landing is as slow as possible., and for me anyway that means 3 point. This year I set a new personal best record of sorts: 184 hrs airtime and only 5 pavement landings, all except one of those were at larger (for Idaho anyway) controlled airports where I had no other option. The other one was a flooded paved road leading out of a reservoir, and I water skied up to it just for kicks, forgetting that this would screw up my not landing on pavement record for the year. Personally, other then the slowest possible touchdown speed thing, I get a lot more satisfaction out of a perfect 3 point then I do out of a perfect 2 point. No wind, high wind, cross wind, I 3 point it. The only time I 2 point is on a big rock landing area, a big rock landing area with a fair bit of length however. Even then the tail is very low, almost a 2.5 point landing Landing slow as possible is also easier on my turf strip, the grass holds up better.

courierguy wrote: When on the pricey Airstreaks every landing is as slow as possible., and for me anyway that means 3 point.

Careful - you're going to upset contactflying with statements like that

I think the tail-low wheel landing is a good place to live, wash off as much speed as possible while still keeping that tail up once you're on the ground.

My personal favourite is the one-point landing as demonstrated by the SQ2 in various videos.

M6RV6 wrote: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'm with you George...

I don't know, or care, what does what most days. Sometimes my tailwheel low wheel landings have the tail too low and all three touch at once, so I pull the wheel back and plant it three point. Sometimes my three pointers find the mains touching first, so I shove the wheel forward and pin it on two. Unless I'm aiming for a specific reason to do one or the other, I don't sweat it.

Now strong winds.... I'll wheel land and plant ONE (upwind) and ride it out as the other two come down. But my groundspeed is SLOW so it's usually over with in a hurry.

Gump

I firmly disagree with saying that you can land any plane 3 point or a wheel landing.... just think of all the nose wheels that would get torn off!!!

Battson wrote:My personal favourite is the one-point landing as demonstrated by the SQ2 in various videos.

The bearhawk performs the tail first landing quite well.

Times are a changin I guess contact.
I know of 2 duster guys (owners) that only 3!!
One of em is a heck of a good pilot. But then again he does next to zero off airport stuff.
He claims the way I fly is "a good way to tear up a good airplane".
I don't enjoy any other type of flying so I guess thats the risk I take...

cstolaircraft wrote:I firmly disagree with saying that you can land any plane 3 point or a wheel landing.... just think of all the nose wheels that would get torn off!!!

Well this is for the tailwheel twins out there!!
Anyone ever see or land a Beech18 ,C46 ,DC3, 3 point??

Show me a picture and maybeeeeeeeee I'll believe you!!

M6 the guy im talking about has a beech 18 and only lands it 3 pt as well!!,!
Late 50's fellow. Been an ag pilot all his life. And sees no use for a wheelie. I don't get it. I quit talking to him about it other than we he ribs me for "showing off". Yep. Heard that one to.

Battson wrote:

Barnstormer wrote:This epiphany took place while I was in Alaska pre-buy flying my SQ-2.

I think it goes without saying, you're going to have to post a Pirep now...

I plan on taking plenty of videos and photos on the trip down from AK. After that you bet I'll put together a Pirep!

Battson wrote:My personal favourite is the one-point landing as demonstrated by the SQ2 in various videos.

It is seriously cool! But does require frequently checking gear bolts for looseness. If their loose they're stretching, time to replace.

55wagon wrote:Phil it sounds like you may have been under the Vajdos influence.

Ha ha. Hey, I'm consistently making the turnoff at Robbie's, but three pointing the landings. I'll admit I can't make turn turnoff if I do a wheelie in the 185. So. When you gonna teach me?

Haha Phil. It's way easy with a north wind.
I'm a horrible teacher but I sure love trying! We need to take advantage of this weather. Sounds like you were a little today.

A HA! Mein Fuehrer explains why every time I see an RV-whatever take off, it stays within 3' of the ground for the first 3000' of runway so that it can "zoom climb" up to pattern altitude. And all this time I thought the pilot was just showing off!

On the wheel landing vs. 3-point, as one of the world's lousiest tail-dragger pilots, I can safely say that I followed my TW instructor's advice: "Just land the airplane!"

Cary

55wagon wrote:Phil it sounds like you may have been under the Vajdos influence.

A friend who has found us wants to know which technique you prefer over power lines?

Runway length Cross winds and gusts determine my trim position.
Trim determines how fast I land. What matters to pilot and passengers ?
Exposure to risk in terms of time and distance used
to get down to controlled 20 MPH or less.
My stip is 700 ft. then up hill dead end to high trees. Tail trim 75% down.
I always land here with no airspeed showing above 45 mph for 30 years.
85% landings require no brakes, I add power to get up the hill.
Paved airports with cross winds, less flaps and trim,land at an angle to runway helps.
An old FAA examiner told me to land at an angle and end up in the grass to save the plane.I did this at RAP rapid city in 55 kt cross, I went into the grass, and was chewed out by the tower..Save the people, Save the plane
http://www.skywagons.org/gallery/albums ... 57_001.jpg
http://www.skywagons.org/gallery/albums ... c00550.jpg
http://www.skywagons.org/gallery/albums ... c00368.jpg

Barnstormer wrote:

55wagon wrote:Phil it sounds like you may have been under the Vajdos influence.

A friend who has found us wants to know which technique you prefer over power lines?

You got me thinking hard now Phil.
Im sure there's an insinuation here but I'm not real sure what it would matter landing over something.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a wheelie only proponent. Different situations require different techniques. As echoed throughout, if you lock into any one way of doing something your narrowing your options as to what you can do or where you can go. IMO.
I have come in many times over an obstacle and done the tailwheel first 3pt bit. It's an sq2/180 at heart

Many times I can't even tell you what or why I did something I just did 5 min ago. You just gotta do what is needed and be able to adapt instantly. Whether micro or major. Your landing (and taking off) rule book needs to be written in pencil because it will be changed often over the years.
One of the reasons I love flying so much, especially this kind, is because I never get good enough at it. It's the most rewarding type of challenge to me. Being able to have that same excitement time and time again is what keeps me coming back for more.
I guess that's why this topic never gets old to me either because landing is still my favorite part of flying.

M6RV6 wrote:Tho most of my 3 point landings go 3-2-3??

courierguy wrote:Even then the tail is very low, almost a 2.5 point landing

So I was at the restaurant between having just finished a cheeseburger without the bun (working on that 30 BMI), and waiting for the pineapple cake and ice cream to arrive, and I got to thinking about the 3-2-3 point landing as well as the 2.5 point landing.

It was at that point that I realized the whole 2 point vs 3 point argument, especially when you consider the ambiguity of the 2 point landing (I mean is the tailwheel one of the points?) was more similar to the description for the number Pi (π).

Being an irrational number, my landings as represented by a decimal somewhere between 1 and 3 points, cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of any two integers. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern. The digits appear to be randomly distributed, although no proof of this has yet been discovered.