Eric brought up being bored with the full flaps Skywagon Thread and I thought I would start a new one regarding wheel landings vs 3 points.

Here are my feelings on the subject. First and foremost - I think the main reason I love flying tailwheel aircraft so much is because of wheel landings. To me - there is nothing more eloquent or beautiful than a well executed wheel landing. My default is a wheel landing just purely due to aesthetics but will preferentially 3 point on soft, rough or wet surfaces. I also 3 point when I screw up my wheel landings with a bounce where a go around is not needed. In gusty conditions with crosswind or not - the wheel landing is preferred. I was taught to use a faster approach speed with wheel landings but have learned that either one can be performed at slow speeds < 50 mph (sportsman equipped) with power application. A slower speed makes them less prone to bouncing. Landing distance is about the same with either technique. A short wheel landing for me has more variability due to the timing of the mains touching the ground. I feel it is a bit more predictable 3 pointing but maybe I just need more practice. The 180/185 lands well either 3 point or wheel. I think the wheel landing reduces some of the wear and tear on the empennage and tail. Some tailwheel pilots prefer one over the other. I practice both but from this post you can tell my bias.


Josh

The guy in the hangar next to me just spent $200k on a rebuilt wagon. It was wrecked a couple years ago by another guy based on the field. The new owner nearly wrecked it a week ago, off the runway into the grass, wingtip nearly touching the ground. He asked me at what wind speed I decide to wheel land versus 3 point.
When I first got my wagon, I got checked out in it by an experienced tailwheel guy. We did plenty of 3 points and at the last minute did a couple of higher speed wheel landings. I met a guy with lots of experience to fly with when I had only a dozen hours in the wagon, and he would only do 3 points, he couldn't do a wheel landing to save his life. I practiced wheel landings by myself now and then, but the first back country Utah trip, at 160hours total time, I saw a need to protect the tailwheel on rough strips. That was 3 years ago, I can count the 3 points I've done since then on one hand.
I landed at Saratoga Wyoming about a month ago, 13 gusting 27 at 80 degrees off the runway, 30 degrees flaps, diagonal to the runway, wheel landing with the stall horn starting to go. I prefer the visibility, and the control of a wheel landing. I'd have to really think about it to do a 3 point now.
It seems there are people that really think a 3 point is the ONLY way to go, I think its likely because they haven't mastered the wheel landing!

Given a choice, I like a 3 point

Utah-Jay wrote:Given a choice, I like a 3 point

Care to elaborate on why?

StillLearning wrote:

Utah-Jay wrote:Given a choice, I like a 3 point

Care to elaborate on why?

I am coming in really slow with a wing angle up nearly all the time, essentially a steep approach with my eyes glued to my intended landing spot in the windscreen and use power to arrest the sink just before touchdown, it is just a natural 3 pointer for me. I often push the stick a bit forward at or just after touchdown to ease the pressure off the TW though. Dick Williams was not a big fan of my pushing the stick forward a bit in that way though. When I fly again… in about 15-16 months I will work on it

Both of you guys can take advantage of the benefit of both full stall three point and wheel landings. The advantage of full stall three point is that we land as slow as possible (airspeed.) The advantage of the wheel landing is that wind gusts are less likely to cause unwanted return to flight and we can see where we are going better. Full flaps help with either type landing. It is logical to wheel land in wind because less pitch attitude is required to arrive at slow ground speed. To get the best of both type landings: slow the airplane coming into ground effect, almost three point touchdown, and level the fuselage to touchdown.

Neither three point nor almost three point and then level the fuselage works well if we are going too fast. Vso is too fast at this touchdown point. It will bounce unless we are really slick with the strong push forward on the stick. We need to be at the airspeed the wing will no longer lift the weight with the help of one inch AGL ground effect. Deceleration on short final so that throttle comes into full control so that we can touchdown on the exact desired spot allows angle across the runway (more or less depending on speed of crosswind component) allows us to take out some of the crosswind component. This allows safe landing in extreme crosswinds by taking a fuller advantage of the headwind component. A wheel landing is absolutely necessary in these conditions as the airplane would be flying without being tied down in a three point attitude at zero ground speed.

Tail low two point.

I'm figuring you're just trolling but I'm in anyway I owned a 170 for years and usually did a three point. When I got my 180, it was my opinion that it liked wheel landings. My particular 180 is still flying at three point attitude and the braking is pretty much nil. I'm convinced that I can land it shorter coming at the same speed for a three point but putting it up on two and stomping on the brakes. Can I three point? Sure. I just choose not to most of the time.

Wayne

NineThreeKilo wrote:Tail low two point.

Exactly what Contact said... but in 4 words

And IMHO the correct way to set down the vast majority of tailwheel airplanes. Set it down... try not to plop, and try not to drive it on as these are both hard on equipment, and poor form.

If you can consistently set your airplane down gently on it's mains with the tail low, you will be proficient enough to appease the examiner or check airmen that wants to see the pointless 3 point or tailed up wheelie...

If you learn to arrive like this you will find that you really don't need much brake to get stopped surprisingly short, nor will you need to do the ridiculous Valdez style heavy brake / throttle modulation routine to keep the tail up ( I *think* they're trying to protect it?), because you will be moving SLOW...

Take care, Rob

When I saw what they get for a replacement stinger, I quit doing three-points.

Still pretty new tailwheel pilot here, I got my endorsement by Jughead who I consider a very good pilot.

I like to try tail low landings, specially on gravel bars, or off airport fields, I come very slow with power, like if I am going to do a 3 point and just before touching down I push on the yoke a bit and it makes for a very slow tail low landing, no bounce, or a small one, and slows down quickly, still practicing and learning them, to be very consistent, sometimes I don't push enough and the tail touches, then I push more to keep it in the air for as long as possible.
Far from being an expert, I find this thread is good to learn what techniques others are using.

Dog is my Copilot wrote: Eric brought up being bored with the full flaps Skywagon Thread and I thought I would start a new one regarding wheel landings vs 3 points. ....

I wasn't so much bored, as I was amused at all the flap about flaps.
I didn't know full vs partial / no flaps was such a controversial subject--
right up there with wheel landings vs 3 point.
Oh yeah, lets not forget mogas vs 100LL, and mystery oil too!

As for myself, I generally wheel land on pavement, and tail-low wheel land or 3-point on grass.
I generally try to get the tail on the ground in short order (dump flaps & reduce speed)--
esp in crosswinds so I have one more wheel on the ground helping me stay straight.

Techniques...reading Bill White's article about the MAF's wheel landing technique helped me quite a bit
when I was first learning to do them in my old 170 about 20 years ago.
That article is available on the BWI website,
but unfortunately it's been modified and added to over the intervening years.
IMHO the original article was better.

FWIW the whole technique boils down to just a few sentences (see attached).
I don't agree about being on a one-mile final at 500' AGL,
way too flat of an approach IMHO, but the rest is good.

Most of Bill's article on landing skywagons is pure gold - except that bit about getting established on a 1 mile final! Nope.

Many, many moons ago, the Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation put together programs promoting tail low wheel landings. That has been my "Go to" technique for MOST landings for years.

That said, I still practice three point landings. Staying proficient at both is fun and keeps us working at our skills. I rarely use three points, especially in this 175 of mine, since I can't see beans in front of me with the tail down.

But, the point is, a tail low wheel landing (that is, with the tail an inch or so from the surface) allows us to touch at virtually the same speed we'd be at in a three point, it helps to protect that fairly fragile tailwheel assembly, and it gets the tail up right after the touch, so that we can see where we're going. In back country flying, and especially in off airport flying, being able to see where you're going is an essential component.

I see a lot of people wheel landing at REALLY fast speeds, rolling it on. That may look pretty, but my philosophy is, it's when the wheels (or at least some of them) are on the ground that the rodeo MAY start. As long as the plane isn't touching the surface, it's probably not going to break. So, when I touch down, I want it to be at the slowest practical and safe speed. I don't want to dance with a plane at any faster speed than is absolutely necessary.

Pretty landings aren't important to me. To me, a good landing is one where the plane touches as closely as possible to where the pilot intended, at the minimum safe speed for the conditions.

Oh, yeah, and it's nice if you can use the plane again..... .

MTV

What MTV and Rob said!

And full flaps, autogas, and MMO! Cause I'm a grown ass man and I do what I want As long as my wife lets me!


The tail isn't as robust as the main gear. Inspecting planes over the years, I've had many planes that needed welding on the tubes in the tail. This one fact is why I avoid 3 point.

The Skywagon tail is pretty tough, I haven't found as much damage in those, mostly just worn out bits.

Landing with the tail off the ground is also a great way to avoid shimmy. The heavier the tail, and the more worn-out, higher chance of shimmy, further accelerating wear and tear.

Congratulations. She was just girlfriend and copilot when you two were here with the Mooney.

contactflying wrote:Congratulations. She was just girlfriend and copilot when you two were here with the Mooney.

Well Jim, she took possession of my airplanes and my dog, she out smarted me...

motoadve wrote: ... just before touching down I push on the yoke a bit and it makes for a very slow tail low landing, no bounce, or a small one, and slows down quickly, still practicing and learning them, to be very consistent, sometimes I don't push enough and the tail touches, then I push more to keep it in the air for as long as possible.

While I am no expert in stol ops, this is pretty much the opposite of what I do. That is not to suggest that I'm doing something cool your doing something wrong. I just skin this cat differently, and much of that is a throwback from my working environment.

First of all, if I am landing, I want the thing to quit flying. Immediately!
Simple physics and flying 101 dictate that the very notion of rolling the nose over, is how to make an airplane that is trying to quit flying, fly again... this is the exact opposite of my goal.

You can in fact rotate, and not touch the tail. Someone above said they're 180 is still flying in the 3pt
This too is an inaccurate statement. I'm not calling him a liar, I'm merely point out that again, physics and flying 101 dictate that it will fly in any attitude with relation to the ground, and it will stall in any just as well. If you are not stalled in the 3pt, you aren't configured to do so. Sitting idle on the ground it is stalled, and in 3pt.... If you don't get there in your normal approach, you might be too fast, carrying too much power, carrying not enough power, poorly cg'd, flying too flat of an approach, etc... what I'm saying is just "it doesn't stall in a 3pt", is an incomplete equation.
The point here, is you can rotate, stall, and land tail low.

Keeping the tail up is again anti productive for the flying I prefer. What's the goal? protecting the TW? If that's the case, I'd submit that it's the total sum of energy it receives in a hit that is going to hurt it. Come in fast and grease it on and it will depart at the first connection with a rock. Roll it on at a crawl and you can dropout in and out of tussock holes and it will roll along, they are not 'hardtails' after all... If that still isn't quite enough, perhaps it is time to invest in a BBW...

On the other hand, for the guy that ventures wayyy off the beaten path such as myself, let's say you're right and the strip is softball to basketball sized sharp rock ( like where we played this morning ) and let's say the Gods have chosen for this day to be our charma payback day. My technique falls my TW in a hole and it was such a big hole with sharp crap that it tore the spring and all right off, and broke it a half in two.... I have watched this happen on more than one occasion. Well shizz, I guess I pick the pieces up, throw them in my baggage and tail up taxi well enough to make the Quin man proud, fly home and land on the broken spring stub, or a branch I stuck in it's place.

20 minutes later you arrive to practice your tail up technique, which saves your tailwheel amazingly well! , but only because your right main gear found the hole instead.... If the mains stayed on and intact, that prop and firewall forward is going to be a B!tch to change out there man... hope you didn't cheap out on insurance, because the heli tow is going to be expensive otherwise...

My preferred technique, and this doesn't change from cub to wagon to maule, to whatever.... Slow it down... Slow enough that it won't take any more pitch without wanting to break or need more power (you should have plenty power in by now, and be modulating it to keep it there) rotate into the tail low, (if you're on gravel you should feel the individual bigger rocks ticking at the tires) ease off the power, and stop. This won't be a 17' landing, but in these planes it will be short as you can do and still get back out.
If you need shorter, or if you need more authority, ditch the flaps. I am all of 5'6" and can actuate the flaps in everything I fly without considering any of the movement excessive monkey motion. But I doit every single landing, so it's not a new trick or atrophied skill in the rare events I truly need it.

Again, not an instructor, and not saying I'm doing anything better than the next guy, just putting out there what works for me, and has kept my wife, kids, and dogs happy and safe

Take care, Rob

The last step, in my normal ops, and this will probably be most controversial, is the stick positioning.

I don't suck it back to my belt, I don't shove it to the firewall.

Rolling out is just like flying. I give it what it needs. Now after I've actually landed, is the time I may hold (or more accurately, pick) the tail up to see and dodge. Or, it may be the time I'm holding back stick, or heavy aileron into a stiff breeze. Point is, if your default is 'put it in your gut' or pin it to the panel, instead of 'give it what it needs' and you practice a more unorthodox style of flying, you will sooner or later get bit.

Take care, Rob