Hahaha!

Barnstormer wrote:

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.

3.14159265359

M6RV6 wrote:
3.14159265359 :

You forgot the rest of his landing -
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510
5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679
8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128
4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196
4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091
4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273
7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436
7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094
3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548
0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912
9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798
6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132
0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872
1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235
4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960
5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859
5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881
7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303
5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778
1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989

And here's a photo of a plane executing a perfect 1.0000000 point landing to prove it is theoretically possible, even if it's a practical impossibility!!

Battson wrote:

Oh yea! "G". GUMPSL!

Barnstormer wrote:

Battson wrote:

Oh yea! "G". GUMPSL!

Shit. Oh yea! "U". GUMPSL.

not as funny anymore, in fact it doesn't make any sense at all

Had a couple pics / notes to put in the 'where did you fly today' spread... but then this thread came to my mind...

For the life of me I've never understood this argument Like a couple others, I never think to myself what kind of landing I'm going to do, unless I'm on some kind of check ride...

The concept just doesn't compute with me? After all, all I'm really interested in is landing... And since our airplanes make better flyers, than drivers, I try my best to do it as slow, and short as practicable... You know.. crash as slow as you can, and all...

Anyways, back to the 'points' thing... Seems to me that cross wind 101, and simple student pilot knowledge dictates that 99 % of all of your landings really need to be 'one pointers'... And besides being the 'correct' way to land, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the next time you land anything, if you strive to exaggerate the upwind wheel just a touch, you will find out that your tendency to bounce will be far less than landing flat!

Oh, and BTW, a quick glance at this pic from a couple hours ago (and the 'frosting' on my tire) will reveal a couple things;
A) which way the wind was coming from, and..
B) even a piggish 2up cub driven by a hamfisted yokel, can be landed in a couple cub lengths or so when 'one pointed'. If you can honestly 3 point shorter than that, my hats off to you, but at this state in my game, getting back out is far more worrisome than getting down

disclaimer; upstream landing and 15mph quartering downstream wind...



Actaully was on my way to work and kept getting obscenely cool phone pix from a couple Texan cub owners who just kept rubbing it in with their sweet cubs Consequently I just had to grab Moma on the way and burn some avgas before the evening work... No matter... this time of year is slow for me. Actually had to fire up the Thrush for a whopping 6.5 acres Even got back before the moon was up.
This pic was actually from yesterday, but the start was within minutes of tonights;

M6RV6 wrote:

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??

I have a DC3, and have NEVER landed it 3 pt. and never known anyone who has.

I hope I can be you when I grow up rob.
Awesome pics man!
So I guess you 3 pointed? How fast were you on final?

55wagon wrote:I hope I can be you when I grow up rob.
Awesome pics man!
So I guess you 3 pointed? How fast were you on final?

1, 3, 2, 1, 3
37.795mph and a half..ish

Grow up? why do I gotta be the grown up one?


Come to think of it, pretty sure Coleen regularly reminds me how much I need to grow up

PatínLoco wrote:I have a DC3, and have NEVER landed it 3 pt. and never known anyone who has.

I'd say that's a pretty valid exception.

Zzz wrote:

PatínLoco wrote:I have a DC3, and have NEVER landed it 3 pt. and never known anyone who has.

I'd say that's a pretty valid exception.

Yup. I've been sitting on my hands because I can't for the life of me remember which plane it is. But I know I've read about a few that you must *only* three point because of prop clearance. Apparently you took off the same way. Accelerate with all three wheels on the ground until you start flying, then pitch for a more "normal" attitude.

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?

There is a story here. I can imagine it is funny too.

G'Day

The great thing about ski flying is getting to see just where and how you touched down. This would qualify as a three point landing I believe, going by the tracks. Looks like I had a little extra speed here to get that bounce, but I sure cut it close on my touchdown spot, just right. About a 20% grade here, and that brush was 3 to 4' high. Then I powered back up onto the mains to maintain some speed to keep my momentum up. When I get back on the Airstreaks in the summer, I always miss this forensic capability that the snow provides.

Love the snow shot!

rw2 wrote:Yup. I've been sitting on my hands because I can't for the life of me remember which plane it is. But I know I've read about a few that you must *only* three point because of prop clearance. Apparently you took off the same way. Accelerate with all three wheels on the ground until you start flying, then pitch for a more "normal" attitude.

Unless the prop has been molested, a Thrush with a geared 1340 will be 3 pointed. But as a general rule, Thrush are so docile that they don't care which way you land them (provided adequate ground clearance). While they frequently operate off dirt, I doubt we'll see any on ridge tops or sand bars... So I think in this case again, the OP's statement of 'land it how it's most comfortable' fits perfect.

FWIW;
if you are 5'6" and have average proportions, the hopper of a 510 Thrush will be higher than your line of sight when sitting 3 pt...
in fact,it will be almost as high as the top of your head.
if you are operating off a typical ag strip, the pavement (if you are that lucky) will end just outside the span of your main wheels, so there will be no such thing as an 'S' turn.
and.... most of the time, your only reason for landing, will be to pick up the next load, so doing it slow may not be your highest priority... fast 3 points suck...

One of our pilot/mechanics owns a DC3. It has the gear door mods, but other wise I *think* it is a stock bird. While I have no experience landing it, his experience is that you can land it 3 point, but it wouldn't be the wisest, and he does not. I am almost certain he 3 pts. everything else. There is another 'older wiser' ag operator in our valley who is also a pretty firm 3 pointer. He also wheels the birds that work better wheeled. He has more warbirds and cool toys than a mere mortal should be allowed! It is unlikely that in todays world I will ever achieve the experience level of either of these gents, consequently I listen to all they have to offer, and then use the tools that adapt well to my missions or flying preferences.

Take care, Rob

Two Pawnees can still keep up with any 600hp radial, but they have to work close to the field. That means satellite fields, roads, and pastures. Both slowness and good visibility are necessary in those landing zones. Both radials and Pawnees are about gone now. Sad.

courierguy wrote:The great thing about ski flying is getting to see just where and how you touched down. This would qualify as a three point landing I believe, going by the tracks. Looks like I had a little extra speed here to get that bounce, but I sure cut it close on my touchdown spot, just right. About a 20% grade here, and that brush was 3 to 4' high. Then I powered back up onto the mains to maintain some speed to keep my momentum up. When I get back on the Airstreaks in the summer, I always miss this forensic capability that the snow provides.

Looks to me like a 3- 2-almost a 3rd 2, then set the tail wheel down

Bitchin landing know matter how you did it!! Glad your out Playin in the Snow!!