Yeah, no kidding, from "Do you know the Reims Rocket" to your haircut and a stop by the Maule´s.

Come on Rocketeer, play a little. What you say was the last phrase I wrote, but if I wanted some discussion I had to delete it. As you say, every situation needs of a different landing, it´s like the flaps, but then, some people prefers landing no flaps while some others use as much as they can. There´s always a best flap configuration, but you know...

AH-64A&D test pilot... aaalright... holy crap!. As an ex-AF chopper pilot, do you know (it´s my thread I can hijack it whenever I want ) the "Patrulla Aspa"? My teachers for the ATP were/are Spanish AF helicopter instructors and, beer after beer, they decided to start an "aerobatic" team with their basic trainer, the Eurocopter EC-120B. Whatever. So, are you crop/firefighting dusting now?

Back to that AIP

Rocket,

I am playing...sort of. My post wasn't intended to flame you. Ask a64pilot what happens when I turn the flame thrower on. The three point landing, wheel landing debate has been beaten to death on every aviation forum on the internet including this one. For the most part I've pretty much refused to join the discussion anymore except for occasionally tossing a grenade into the debate.

I'm in agreement with a64pilot about how the Maule likes to be landed, but with some practice it will wheel land very well too. When flown in a stablized slow approach it's set up well for a three point or tail low wheel landing, the conditions dictate whether you pull into a full stall or push on touchdown (and then stand on the brakes and keep the tail from coming up too high if you're landing short).

That's my two cents worth.

Rocket,
I'll try with the three point vs wheel thing a little, although Strata is right it's been beat to death before, although I will try to bring in some fresh meat.
I think the Maule has a lower angle of incidence between the wing and fuselage than most tail draggers. I don't know this, I don't even know what the angle measures at, but it would be one way to get a higher cruise speed out of a STOL aircraft. The lower the angle, the less nose down an aircraft would have to fly at higher speeds.
If you watch videos like Big Rocks and Long Props you will see that People
like Greg never three point, they always seem to land in a tail low wheelie.
Do not forget though that Greg has extended gear and really huge monster tires on Bushmaster so his wings angle of attack is much higher on his aircraft in a tail low wheelie than my aircraft is even if I am in a tail first touchdown on a three point. This higher angle of attack would help in T/O as well as landings.
In a stock Maule with stock size tires in order to do a good wheel landing you have to be going quite fast, I think due to the low angle of incidence. If your landing speed is high, then you of course will use more runway and if you ground loop at a higher speed, well you know the outcome is going to be more expensive. Also there isn't much prop clearence in a two point attitude in the higher powered and long proped Maule's. There is a statement in the POH about maintaining a min. tire pressure in the stock tires because of prop clearence.
Even in a stock aircraft the tail low wheel landing is nice, and in my estimation also takes the most skill. I would like to tell you that I have them down, but I don't. I can't always spot land in a tail low wheelie and never have any bounce every time, I'm just not good enough. I can always spot land every time in a three point though.
Here's the point, I think that average pilots of average skill flying stock Maule's can land in the shortest distance, with the greatest safety in a three point attitude. This is the reason I believe that the factory discourages wheel landings. I think it's that simple, nothing more complicated than that.
Of course this is all just my opinion and not based on any facts of any kind.

AH64,

I think it´s based on facts. Your opinion as owner/pilot itself is a fact, the fact that you have experienced it, the wing incidence (now that you mention it, I think I´ve read or seen it somewhe) and even the POH talking about it.

With your description I can picture myself into its cockpit, stablished on that stabilized slow approach Rocketeeer describes and see how she wants to be landed and how she could be landed. Kind of like on the Pitts (only some dual time). By the time you are 3 ft above the ground, any previous idea to wheel land it evaporates, mostly because if you slow the plane its attitude is gonna be perfect for a three points. To land that thing on the wheels you´d need to be going at 600Kts and a trench between your wheels to put the prop in No, for real, I´ve made a picture of how it could be.

Rocketeer, with the abuse I make of the emoticons, I should have introduced this one: somewhere into my second paragraph a post ago. Don´t worry, even if you were mentioning my mother, I wouldn´t flame; of course I won´t if I see Zane´s picture presiding over your post hehehe. For the wheel vs 3 point landing discussion, the idea was knowing how the Maules like to be landed and what one can do with them more than "knowing" what´s better in general as that "in general" is not applicable because the reasons you mentioned and because the different airplanes behaving in different ways. I just started it this way because I wanted some action , if I´m not gonna have it but I´m getting the real answers I was looking for, GOOD

Time for a coffee. If some of you is able to make it to Spain in 15 minutes, I´ll have the bill for whatever he wants (at this time it should be a coffee, but it´s up to the guest).

Jose, you crack me up.

Oh, don´t worry. If you feel like sending it... do it. It´ll be a problem for me, you know, explainning where it came from, the taxes, but I can make it if you ask me to. In fact, if anyone feels like sending something, the plane´s payment, the plane´s insurance payment or whatever, I´ll give my best to accept it

But then again, you have to make it in 15 minutes to Spain, so I hope you are a good swimmer.

By Rocket I go wrote:Hiya all,

...all the fuel produced in Saudi Arabia today scattered all around the plane... around the tanks it has all around I mean!...
Jose

Hi, Jose;
Welcome to the forum. Tell us what you've got for fuel tanks, where are they located, and are they factory, or aftermarket? I'd love to get some more fuel in my 172.
Thanks, Berk

Hiya Berk, thanks for the welcome.

Not realy that much fuel, my second name is Exagerated. In gallons it is something like 65 usable in any flight condition, distributed in three tanks the airplane had when left the factory. Two on the wings and another with around 18 on the back, under the luggage. You use a pump to move it to the right wing, so you should use that one first (until it´s empty according to the POH, a couple of hours according to my stomach), change to the left, pump the fuel to the right again and once the extra is empty and the right full, set it to "BOTH". Here is where the fuel administration plays an important role. If you fly full throttle, you are going to burn it all in 6 hours, but if you fly 90-95 KIAS, you can see fuel flows around 5-6, so you have some more than 11 hours endurance. A hell of a lot of hours to be up there, so you usually don´t take advantage of it. Depending on what you are going to do, you leave the extra full (for water accumulation and stuff) and fly with the mains; use the three of them on long x-countries (for example in the ferry flight I described), or leave the extra empty if you are going to fly high altitude doing some kind of work, like towing banners, gliders or whatever, to save some weight. Always something good to have those hours there, no doubt.

Regarding the instalation of the extra in a regular 172, I´m sure it´s possible. It´s located on the luggage compartment (weight and ballance considers weight there, besides its floor considers weight over it too), you can see and touch the whole thing pulling up the upholstery (so it doesn´t require the airframe to be built around it) and it leads the fuel to the right tank thru the same line it uses to feed the engine, not even reaching the fuel tank selector (don´t never EVER try to use the pump when using the right tank or you may find yorself flying a glider!!), so even if it´s not something you can make at home, the work is not like rebulding the whole plane up. Everything, from the tank itself to the pump and the dial reading the fuel quantity, seems like aftermarket, fitted to the plane after it was built and installed where they found the space to do so. Some Reims Rocket don´t have it, so I guess it was installed in the factory, yes, but after the planes were built. Leading all this to think your work shop could find one to install it on your 172. Just my thoughts based on suppositions, not that I really know it.

Man am I glad this thread went from wheel vs. three point back to the Reims Rocket/T-41/Hawk XP.

Strata is right. Last time I got involved in a wheel landings vs. three point thread, I pulled the pin on the grenade. I just forgot to let go of it and hide before it went off!!!

M

PS. Nice to meet you, Jose!

Talking about it, I use to wheel land the Rocket. Do you think three pointing it I could get better short landing distances? What if the wind blows way too strong?

Glad you are glad and thanks for the welcome!

Jose