I searched a little but not see this discussed. If so please let me know.

Just interested in opinions, ideas and thoughts here. Especially from the experienced. Everywhere I go I ask peoples opinions on this. Just out of curiosity. Its funny to me how die hard the 3 pt crowd is that thats the only safe way to do it and the best way. And rarely have I been able to convince other wise. This is even the case in the ag flying circle I visit with. Other than when the circumstances dictate, Im a wheeler. I am also curious why the 3 pt crowd always discredits any advice or blows off the good reasons for wheel landing like its just ridiculous. Things like "just showing off" or " good way to tear up a plane". The number one argument i get is that if you 3pt land your at the slowest speed and done flying. Which to me is the biggest reason not to do it. You have little control for xwind or go around, visibility is less, or if anything at all is not right your committed. Your in a small window of mercy land. which is nooo problem 99% of the time I guess. Anyways, just a for fun discussion. I know my mind wont be changed and probably neither will the other side. Just curious.

I don't consider myself locked in to one or the other. Just like the plane has to fit the mission, the choice of the landing must fit the situation. I am off airport most of the time and like the visibility and instant go around capability of the wheel landing for roads, deer, pheasants or other unknowns. With over size tires most planes here will be at as high or higher angle of attack with a tail low wheelie and as slow as a normal tired similar aircraft doing a three pointer. For that reason the lines between the two landings have become blurred.

Whoops! just noticed you asked for this from the experienced.

I think anyone that's "die hard" about one method or the other is...not to be trusted.

There are may topics on this, but they may not be titled exactly as you searched.

https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=wheel+landing+3+point+site%3Abackcountrypilot.org

What he said! ^

Each has it's place. Anyone who will only 3-point onto an unimproved river bar probably needs their head looked at.

I agree that it largely depends on the circumstances. I don't like to lock myself into only doing things one way. I practice both regularly.

I prefer to land tail low for short field landings. My plane is a taildragger with a Horton STOL kit and the natural slow in approach attitude of the plane is more of a three point attitude and keeping the tail low when hard braking is necessary will lessen the probability of nosing over.

As my plane is a 172 swept tail taildragger, I tend to like keeping the tail up as soon as possible on take-off and use wheel landings in crosswinds to get max rudder authority so it depends somewhat on the plane too.

I think it's best to keep an open mind and not use only one method so you can exploit the maximum potential of the plane's performance. The same goes for the use of flaps and how much flap to use. I think pilots should familiarize themselves with landing with no flaps every so often too. Many pilots learn the structured approach which allows consistancy in landing. When you start exploring off field landings I believe you need to be adaptive.

The way my plane is balanced most of the time, it prefers tail low (like 4" off the deck) when 55MPH or slower. 55 MPH or faster I like to wheel it on. The weight I normally fly at I like to come over the numbers at 55MPH, get it into the tail low angle, touch down at 45-50, dump flaps, yoke full back, get on the brakes till the tail is 1-2' off the ground and work the brakes to keep the tail in that area, as the speed gets near 20 I gently lower the tail to the ground. I like the view of what is out front with the tail 1-2' off the ground.

If I am on a long RW and have 4 souls on board I like to keep it near 60 MPH, flying level, and descending at 50 FPM, then let it settle when it is ready.

With the 35s I can drag it in at 45-50 even done 40-45 MPH, get to the spot to land, pull power, and your on the ground RIGHT NOW!

G'Day

No quicker way to start an argument...is this a troll?

I have a humble 600 hours of tailwheel time. Much of that has been spent giving tailwheel endorsements (a learning experience in itself), and so I have to do both to teach both.

My own belief is that, as has been stated above, "it depends".

I have flown some aircraft that liked to wheel land and others that didn't (don't get me started about the Pawnee with the Frankenstein spring gear instead of the stock bungee gear).

There are some aircraft that are not meant to be wheel landed like the P-47, Helio-Courier and Pilatus Porter, though I'm not sure it would be impossible on the later two (the P-47 doesn't have the prop clearance and there are several other WW2 fighters that probably aren't wheel landed either).

My shortest landings are always three point, though I tend to (on rougher fields) pick up the tail with elevator and brakes as soon as I am down to save the tailwheel and see better. This is also what I see on STOL contest videos, a three point attitude on touchdown, often followed by braking on the mains. I would also use a 3-point for sand (I don't have much experience on sand) or any really soft field type landings (I have landed in mud a few times when a wheel landing might have resulted in a nose over).

It is easier for me to have a more consistently smooth wheel landing.


I see VERY experienced pilots doing both. I have heard some very experienced pilots swear by one or the other.

I like doing both and my flying experience wouldn't be as fun doing only one or the other.

Shit... Sometimes I'll do all three techniques. In the SAME landing.

Gump

I prefer to 3-point land, it feels better. Wheel landings in crosswinds might seem to make sense, but eventually you're going to slow down enough to let the tailwheel down, right? Then you're in the same situation as the 3-point landers, only further down the runway...

This isn't to say I won't wheel land when conditions require it. I just prefer 3-point.

3 point versus wheelie. Why didn't you throw something in there about religion or politics, too. Sheesh! When I flew my 170., I almost always 3 pointed. With my 180, I almost always wheel land. With the DC-3, we always wheeled it on, always. Some airplanes 3 point nicely, and some don't. A loaded 3 is actually kind of dangerous to 3 point. I can do either but I choose depending on the aircraft I'm flying and what I want out of the landing.

Wayne

c180pilot wrote:3 point versus wheelie. Why didn't you throw something in there about religion or politics, too. Sheesh! When I flew my 170., I almost always 3 pointed. With my 180, I almost always wheel land. With the DC-3, we always wheeled it on, always. Some airplanes 3 point nicely, and some don't. A loaded 3 is actually kind of dangerous to 3 point. I can do either but I choose depending on the aircraft I'm flying and what I want out of the landing.

Wayne

What Wayne said. I think the aircraft plays a huge part in the discussion. Also how it is equipped (bushwheels or not) has to play into it as well.

Good discussion.

I am a relative babe to tailwheeling, only about 350 hours in type, 1000 hours TT.

What I can say is that in my experience, my airplane does not like to wheel land. The tail surfaces are undersized and at landing speed, the rudder and elevator are running out of authority. I would never even consider wheel landing it in a cross wind situation. In a cross wind I want the tail down and on the ground for control.

I see the "big time" bush pilots always wheel land in the rough. I have a hard time understanding this. Maybe it's just my plane or my (lack of) experience, but I can't understand how you can land shorter wheeling than three-pointing.

In the right conditions, wheeling is fun and good practice, but as a rule, I three-point.

Av8r3400 wrote:I see the "big time" bush pilots always wheel land in the rough.

My take is that "in the rough" you want to keep your tail (& tailwheel) off the rough. Then stopping is a balance of keeping the tail low (without hitting the rough) as you brake hard.
Three point touchdown is for smooth/improved surfaces.

Just get rid of them damn wheels. The water is always great!

I find landing on the mains and holding the nose off as long as possible works best.(hehe)

GumpAir wrote:Shit... Sometimes I'll do all three techniques. In the SAME landing.

Gump

Amen, Bro. Did one of those just the other day, actually. After, remind student: Don't lock up on the controls, okay?

MTV

55wagon wrote:...The number one argument i get is that if you 3pt land your at the slowest speed and done flying. Which to me is the biggest reason not to do it. You have little control for xwind or go around, visibility is less, or if anything at all is not right your committed....

So why is a wheel landing different? Other than initially touching ground at a higher speed and scrubbing a bit more meat off the mains you are shortly thereafter at the same "done flying" speed at which a 3 pointer would first make ground contact. The only difference is that your tail is up in the air. How does that help with xwind or go around control?

I'm not following your logic.

The only valid reason I can see for a wheel landing is when landing on rough terrain that could possibly damage the tailwheel or bust it clean off.

silvaire wrote:

55wagon wrote:...The number one argument i get is that if you 3pt land your at the slowest speed and done flying. Which to me is the biggest reason not to do it. You have little control for xwind or go around, visibility is less, or if anything at all is not right your committed....

So why is a wheel landing different? Other than initially touching ground at a higher speed and scrubbing a bit more meat off the mains you are shortly thereafter at the same "done flying" speed at which a 3 pointer would first make ground contact. The only difference is that your tail is up in the air. How does that help with xwind or go around control?

I'm not following your logic.

The only valid reason I can see for a wheel landing is when landing on rough terrain that could possibly damage the tailwheel or bust it clean off.

You have to have wind going by a control surface to make it effective..think speed, wind, control during a wheel landing. Always wheel landing in heavy crosswinds= more control.
HC

hicountry wrote:...think speed, wind, control during a wheel landing. Always wheel landing in heavy crosswinds= more control...

Since the ultimate goal of any landing is to obtain an airspeed of zero you're going to have to lose that extra speed. Once you have put the mains on and have slowed to the same speed at which the three-pointer touches down, what is your advantage?

'55, you are baddd....
Do people really have these conversations outside of the internet?

Sometimes I think we make this flying stuff wayyy more complicated than it really has to be... Very shortly after just learning to fly I gave up any thought as to what or why a three point or wheel landing even was

All I am ever concerned about when landing an airplane is Landing. Safety, and the next take off are pre requisites to that landing. The rest is just preference unless you are truly optimizing for a given parameter for example; flying an old ag plane with a geared motor that swings a prop so big you just need to keep it off the ground, or flying an airplane that is a tad short on tail surface and needs airflow to keep that tail active.

I think anyone who can't land with the tail up, tail down or anywhere in between just isn't proficient enough at that moment. Same goes for the ability to plant either main before the other. I think the notion behind the FAA's requirement to be able to land up on the mains, and down with your tail sagging is just for that purpose. To verify you can master the airplane's landing abilities. I am also of the opinion that any CFI that instructs these two landings as they are two separate actions and there is nothing in-between is doing their student a grave disservice. I view all landings as one action with 3 point or wheelie as the extreme ends of the same action, learning to land as opposed to learning to 3 point or wheelie is probably a better way to teach the whole thought process. I also think that landing at either of those two extremes may be some folks choice, but usually not the most efficient way to get the airplane down.... a valid preference, maybe, maybe even a valid choice for a particular parameter, but not usually...

3 point..... by simply analyzing the name we can deduce this is poor form, after all, basic landing 101 dictates that the upwind wheel needs to contact the ground first if you are showing any wind correction at all. For the purpose of basic landing, all landings should be 1 point (and not the tailwheel) A properly slowed up airplane kissing the earth on all 3 wheels simultaneously, looks beautiful . But realistically, beyond the artful look of it all, a true 3 point landing serves no functional purpose.

Wheel landing... If you are truly landing wings flat, it is highly unlikely you have in fact stalled the wing. Probably not anything wrong with flying an airplane into the ground, if that floats your boat, but the 3 pointers are not wrong when they say it can be done slower. Most ag pilots that are flying high repetitions of loads do this, but they are not interested in getting slowed up to park, they want only to get to the loading pad as quick as safely possible, because landing does not pay the bills. And again, any wind correction at all and it is truly a 'wheel' landing, because there is only going to be one wheel touching at the instant of contact.

Wind correction... if you exaggerate this, your landings will look like you are drunk. If you leave it out, not only will you look drunk, but you will bounce. Because most of our landing gear suspension systems don't allow the wheels to track straight up and down. They all move the wheels closer or farther apart in their travel up and down. This opposing force will have to be cancelled out, and physics 101 dictates that your airplane is whats going to give, and you are going to bounce. Strive to always set one wheel down first, and you will be amazed at how much less you bounce...

Angle of attack... let the angle of attack change too much too quick, and your going to bounce... this is flying 101, keep the tail following the rest of the airplane...

Brakes... As students, we have it beat in our heads to stay off the brakes... phooey... That notion comes from the days of poor mechanical excuses for a brake. If you choose to retain mechanical brakes today, you can continue to stay off them as much as possible. In some airplanes this may be desirable. If you have put modern brakes on your airplane, I suggest that your brake pads will be much more economical to maintain than wing tips and new props. Use all the tools in the box...

Exaggerated control movements... Many instructors teach to shove the stick here, or pin the stick there... meh... the tailwheel isn't going to let the tail rotate any farther if you hold enough pressure to keep the wheel down. Shoving the stick through your seat isn't going to change that... the pilots I strive to emulate, handle flight controls like a fine women. Most hacks I know are shoving and yanking on controls, and it shows in their flying, as well as their maintenance bill... But again... we all have choices...

Landings may not be my strongest suit, but this is what I shoot for in 99% of what I fly, so far so good ;


Since I am somewhat vertically challenged (that means I'm short), this is what the immediately following sight picture looks like;


Notice the flaps are coming up and elevator is letting the tail fly, not forcing it to.. When it is done flying, I strive to let the tail down, again not forcing it to...
BTW, the only reason for the extended roll out is because the picnic area is 600' up the strip. Landing a properly slowed up cub as depicted should essentially be a 300' venture, with no brute force, or aerobatics needed... Properly added tidbits may cut that distance in half, but improperly added rigamarole will extend it... YMMV

FWIW, I don't instruct, I have a boatload of bad habits, and everything above is pure opinion
Sorry for the long winded response '55.... but you asked for it

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote: I have a boatload of bad habits, and everything above is pure opinion

Damn Curmudgeons.... Quit scaring the grandkids.

And hell yeah by the way.

Gump