M6RV6 and mtv, thanks for the information and tips! I have worked with the trim but have not been satisfied with the results. On takeoffs so much forward trim is necessary to make a difference that I end up having to use a lot of back pressure to climb. I quickly deemed that unsafe and went back to 3 point takeoffs.

I will practice the 1,2,3 landing technique and see how that works. Look for me in the accident reports!

I fly and have flown a number of other aircraft and none of them have required the level of attention upon landing in a crosswind that my Maule does. Tom makes a good point about the wheel in the front. Just the other day I was flying a Cherokee 140, practicing landings in a 90 degree crosswind that was sometimes swinging behind me, in winds that I would have gone to another airport in the Maule.

I enjoy flying the Maule and the capabilities and challenges it brings to flying. My observations have to do with a specific area of operation that I find more difficult in my Maule than other aircraft with which I have experience. The plane is due for its annual and I am still suspicious of where the CG is. I think I will have it checked just to make sure.

M6RV6 wrote:Skystryder
I had the chance to run into Orin Hudson in ANC. at the show up there and he explained to me that just about every landing I make should be a 123 landing and should be about a 1/2 bubble off?? (WHEEL LANDING)
reason!
1the gear is much softer on one gear than 2! (less rebound)
GT

This is really true of any airplane that has gear that swings out in it's travel (as opposed to a trailing link set up) If you look at the gear geometry and how it works it is really easy to understand.
As both gear legs are loaded on landing they will "splay" outwards, and upwards letting the airplane settle. The trouble comes when they rebound to their normal position in, and push the airplane back up. This not only physically tries to bounce the airplane, but is also is doing so at the mains and not the tail, effectively increasing your AOA and setting you up for a bounce. On the other hand, if you load one gear at a time, you have exchanged a good portion of the upward push for a side ward push into the wind, and that is a good thing
The longer your gear legs, or the softer they are, the more your landings will benefit from landing one main at a time, which IMHO is the correct way to be landing anyways... BTW, it doesn't have to be an exaggerated amount, just enough to get one down, loaded, and rebounded.
As has been pointed out several places before, I am just a "weedbound" green horn, but in some of the planes I have flown, landing with both mains at the same instant would produce just ugly landings, but when landed correctly the plane would set down as nice as could be imagined.

Take care, Rob

Nice explanation! Thanks Rob!

Skystrider wrote: I have about 250 hours with the Maule and have found that any crosswind component demands my upmost attention. Noticably more so than in the Luscombe or other taildraggers I have flown.

What? ? You mean that old wives tail about Luscombes being a pain on the ground isn't true A Maule is tougher

mtv wrote:.........Some airplanes you can easily (with power) touch down tailwheel first. That's bad practice no matter where you do it...........

That statement takes in a lot of ground. I can see not landing t/w first on rough ground, on smooth surfaces it shouldn't be a problem. Of course, you don't want to slam her down like you came snagged the arresting cable on a carrier either.
When I come in real slow in my C150/150TD, esp carrying a bit of power and a high angle of attack, the t/w is the first point of contact. Then when the mains come down, it decreases the AOA and you're definitely done flying --one of the advantages you touted for wheel-landing t/w low then raising the tail a hair. And before you start on me, I do use wheel landings,3-pointers, and tailwheel-first landings- depending on the situation.

Eric

Anyone have any experience with a taildragger that had steel rod gear in a crosswind? Like an RV-6 or 7 or one of Wittman's designs? I can't think of any production taildraggers that use it off hand. I'm just curious about how it handles differently.

Phil

Small Tail Caddy wrote:MTV,

That answered my question. Your comment "The bigger Cessna taildraggers can eat you alive in a gusty crosswind." and
88H's comment "no more than 20degrees is recommended for cross winds in the 180 and with good reason." just had me wondering if they were more difficult to handle in crosswinds than most.

Vick,

If I remember right you fly a Stinson, I sure hope it is a small tail, as the big tails just can not handle ANY crosswind.

STH:

I needed to correct something you pointed out in my earlier post. I said 20degrees of crosswind, I meant 20 knots of crosswind not degrees (it was late and I was drinking). I didn't mean to imply that the 180 isn't a capable bird in a crosswind, only that you have to stay on top of it.

MTV:

You are absolutely right that one size doesn't fit all and I don't profess to be an expert. Also is a little different on asphalt and off. But I am with TJ Carr on this. I will tell you that I prefer crosswinds on the mains rather than in a 3 point. You do have to slow, but you can do that with the brakes while still having the rudder authority for steering. As you point out, stick with what works!!

Thanks for food for thought though, I am going to experiment a little on dirt with tail low landings.

Regards, Larry

Hotrod,

Even on smooth surfaces, touching down tail first places a significant load on the tail structure. That's a load, particularly in a 150 that was never designed to take that kind of loading. Also, you're spinning up that wheel assembly pretty quick, though I don't know if that really matters.

From the standpoint of technique, that probably won't get you in any trouble on really smooth surfaces, but it's going to place more loads on a "relatively" delicate part of the airplane.

But, you're paying the bills.

MTV

mtv wrote:Hotrod,

Even on smooth surfaces, touching down tail first places a significant load on the tail structure. That's a load, particularly in a 150 that was never designed to take that kind of loading. Also, you're spinning up that wheel assembly pretty quick, though I don't know if that really matters.

From the standpoint of technique, that probably won't get you in any trouble on really smooth surfaces, but it's going to place more loads on a "relatively" delicate part of the airplane.

But, you're paying the bills.

MTV

I found out a couple weeks ago that " quickly spinning up the tailwheel assembly" does matter.
I planted my 170 tailwheel first on the asphalt and ripped the valve stem off the tube.

Do you find many places that are so smooth they lend themselves to tailwheel landings, yet so short they dictate them? Usually my short places are ugly as well

Two words I try to avoid in flying are 'never' and 'always', IMHO anytime you use these words you box yourself into or out of a corner... having said that I never land my cub tail wheel first unless it was a f* up or I was acting a fool... cub tails can be routinely found with a pronounced upward sweep from t/w first landings. If you think this is bogus feel free to check with any of the reputable builders, without exception they all beef up the tail, and without exception they all recommend keeping it up when possible... After all it is on a 16' +/- arm...
To my simple way of thinking, landing t/w first in most planes can and will yield a small landing performance increase... at a potential bigger cost. Just about like approaching from a mile out with your nose pointed at the sky
Of course there are exceptions, the Helio comes to mind, which of course routinely lands t/w first when you are doing your part... hence, the never say never
I'm guessing if you slow your airplane down and roll the nose on just prior to touchdown you will probably gain so little in a/s or energy that a rocket scientist couldn't pick it up. Look at the tcow vid of the sq2 and you will see Wayne Makey do just this...
Take care, Rob