silvaire wrote:

55wagon wrote: Let's just ask, for a given speed of say 40 mph in a crosswind how does having the tail in the air provide any better control over having the tailwheel on the ground?

I think is was MTV said "clean air over the tail", which I would buy into.

I didn't write that. But I have a new theory
Just freakin land in the amount room you have without tearing anything up as much as possible anyway you can. Didn't know it'd get so deep. Everybody's got good points. You can pick up new good tips to try from everywhere. Sometimes you may a accidentally learn something if your opened minded. When you quite learning your either dead or wayyy to proud. Thanks for all the input. Hope to wheel land and 3pt with some of Y'ALL sometime. Gotta run. 45mph 90 deg xwind I wanna go practice in.

55wagon wrote: Didn't know it'd get so deep.

There's nowhere else to go but deeper when we're bored.

I realize that earlier in this thread the use of "3-point" may have been causing miscommunication. MTV latched onto that one though-- It's more about the "full stall" attitude we associate with "3-pointers," but a crosswind landing in this tailwheel-down attitude would certainly be a 2-point, i.e. upwind main and the tailwheel touching.

silvaire wrote:Let's just ask, for a given speed of say 40 mph in a crosswind how does having the tail in the air provide any better control over having the tailwheel on the ground?

As was written a while earlier... Power adds a huge amount to the issue, and power-off and power-on landings are apples and oranges to each other.

Full stall (three point), power is back to idle and what air moving over the tail is whatcha got from airspeed and surface winds.

Wheel landing, you're using power, sometimes lots if the wind's howling, and that's moving across the tail. Watch guys landing in the rough holding that tail up off the rocks and steering side to side. Throttle equals control of the tail.

Gump

Great discussion! While the tail high/clean air argument is pretty much true, think more about the wing. Tail low, high AOA any x wind gust will cause a major change in lift/drag. Tail high equals almost zero AOA, almost no change in lift/drag. Food for thought,only seen the subject touched on: Why is applying "into the wind aileron" so important? I will bet that 90% out there have no idea. Just that they have been told to do so.....

You don't have time to think up there. If You think, your dead.

flynbeekeeper wrote: Why is applying "into the wind aileron" so important? I will bet that 90% out there have no idea. Just that they have been told to do so.....

Adverse yaw.

It's like having another rudder, or at least another tool in your bag of tricks.

You guys have to actually Land your plane .??You should get a 206 . Pretty much lands itself.

Tony G! Awesome! Doing flight reviews and TW endorsements, my experience, almost no one knows that!

Thanks, but truth be told, I give Flight Reviews and TW endorsements too, so it'd be inexcusable to NOT know.

I've found that a demonstration of how much aileron / adverse yaw helps with a light crosswind really helps fix things in students minds. It's a big deal.

--Tony

flynbeekeeper wrote:Tony G! Awesome! Doing flight reviews and TW endorsements, my experience, almost no one knows that!

Almost EVERYone should know that who's flown tailwheel airplanes much, or who's had a decent tailwheel checkout.

Talk to anyone who's ever flown a C-46......some of the wimpiest brakes Curtis could find. Those guys know the old mantra "If it starts to swerve, DRIVE it into the ditch".

MTV

Oh, I forgot, there are the times I wheel land short, put a little power in to keep the tail up, and wheel taxi a couple of thousand feet to the off ramp with the tail in the air. This saves wear and tear on the little tail wheel.

Still, the key defense argument of "I always three point" is at that one single point in time where both techniques intersect, that point when the tail stops flying in a wheelie and finally touches on the ground. Even having done a wheelie ahead of this, the AOA on the wing of both wheelie and three point is now the same when that third wheel touches the ground. The difference most here are pointing out in defense of two wheelers having more control is all happening AHEAD of that intersection of the two techniques while the back half of the plane is still flying. Nothing in the wheeler crowds "wing flatter" or "tail high equals more control" argument applies any more at that "single point in time" because as they say, "the tail must come down". That is the intersection point of the two landing techniques. So what more does the wheelie offer at that "single point"? Certainly not flight control as in both methods the AOA becomes the same and both wing and tail is stalled. The wheelie advantage is in the incremental preparation for that point in time. Wheel traction and direction has been established while the wing and tail surfaces are still providing control instead of waiting for loss of all flight controls at stall after giving up flying "cold turkey", and in that instant trading it for the "all in" bet on directional control with three wheels managing the momentum. This is the single point in time that the full time pointers refer to and I see no other advantage to the wheelie other than reducing that "no control" moment at stall's instant of exposure. As a complete exaggeration, that exposure is being managed in a wheelie like going down the flight of stairs one leg at a time and establishing traction on the left foot before giving up reliance on the right. In the wheelie you don't give up reliance on the wing and tail surfaces before you get directional control established on the wheels.

PS. I just noticed that if you come back and put an ' s as grammar correction you get a note saying it was edited.

I 'm printing out this entire thread, to refer to in flight on short final.

Dirtstrip
I think you are missing the point here of the discussion.
When you plop down at a 3 point attitude you are there! Wind blowing you where it may?
How could you land a TW airplane in wind that is blowing faster than the takeoff speed of you plane if you did not keep the tail up?
You can come to a complete stop if need be in a wheel landing if you need to, never putting the tail down and never increasing the AOA to lift the aircraft of the ground, and have complete control until that time!
I think if you ever land where you have to have some human anchors hold on to your struts so you can put the tail down then you will see the difference.

JMHP
GT

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. Your in a small window of mercy land. which is nooo problem 99% of the time I guess...

silvaire wrote:...but I still have this one thing that bugs me and that is the idea that you somehow have better control over crosswinds with a wheel landing. The "speed and wind over control surfaces" argument doesn't work for me because you are decelerating and, sooner or later, you have to give that advantage up. Let's just ask, for a given speed of say 40 mph in a crosswind how does having the tail in the air provide any better control over having the tailwheel on the ground?

This one time I actually thought I was on point. Guess I will enter "near miss" in my log book notes.

dirtstrip wrote:Still, the key defense argument of "I always three point" is at that one single point in time where both techniques intersect, that point when the tail stops flying in a wheelie and finally touches on the ground.

Negative... and the notion that you may as well 3pt because you have to end up there sooner or later is flawed as well.

The two extremes (wheel and 3pt) only intersect if you choose to land them at the same approach profile and change only the AOA at impact... As GT pointed out in the extreme case you can fly your tail clear to 0 mph and then set your tail down. Try landing 3 point at 0 mph , now that's an intersection of the two I'd like to see...

silvaire wrote:...but I still have this one thing that bugs me and that is the idea that you somehow have better control over crosswinds with a wheel landing.

... By design, every one of our airplanes is required to retain elevator authority enough to stall the wing. And by design, your rudder simply will not stall under any landing configuration. That means your elevator will continue to fly, up down or however you choose in between, long after your wing has signed off. Ditto for your rudder. You have given up your wing in a full stall landing (of course that's the intention). When you full stall, by definition you limit the elevator to holding down the tail.... that's it... over.. no more elevator. Crosswind? Oh... now your ailerons are pegged and by now who knows what your rudder is doing?
Conversely, wheeling you continue to use your elevator, for as much or as little as you choose. One more tool back out of the box. As many have pointed out, and even a few in mockery, you can use your tail to maintain what the wing is doing clear to the stop. Now should you elect to go around, you have a control that is not locked and down, but already in play. In my not so humble opinion, parking the elevator at a stop is tantamount to parking the throttle at a stop. And here again, nothing wrong with landing deadstick (I do it for fun and even practice occasionally) But in pure terms of efficiency and certainly with regards to engine handling, it is probably not the optimum.

IMHO if a person can not understand how a rudder in clear air provides more control than a rudder in blocked air, then they are probably a tad rusty in keeping the rudder in that clean air... nothing wrong with that, just the way it is... On the other hand if a person feels their rudder is not as effective as their tail wheel, well that's a whole different story. On some airplanes it may even be the case, but even in the odd ducks I've flown with better wheel than rudder steering, I haven't met any that couldn't be landed however suited a pilot or circumstance best.

So to get back to the OP's very first post, my personal opinion of a pilot who see's any particular landing style / regime as superior to any other is that said pilot is just limited in his experience of other stuff out there... Again nothing wrong with that, but I have come to learn you can discover a lot more about a person just letting them talk, than they could ever convince you of otherwise

Take care, Rob

Well said rob! Now that's being able to put your thoughts into words and make sense. From now on ill just pm you my thoughts and let you write it for me. My next post: which is better, tailwheel or nose wheel? JUST KIDDING!

Rob wrote:

dirtstrip wrote: IMHO if a person can not understand how a rudder in clear air provides more control than a rudder in blocked air, then they are probably a tad rusty in keeping the rudder in that clean air...

Well for one thing, we're not talking about flight attitude, we're talking about having landed and being on the ground and decelerating. The only effective aerodynamic control with the rudder at some point is going to be from the thrust of the propeller which is going to be in line with the rudder regardless of whether the tail is up or down. Secondly, since we're primarily discussing x-wind influence, how can you discount the control generated by the tailwheel being in physical contact with the ground? If we consider this potential loss of control as ending in a ground loop I think statistics will point out that most of these accidents occur at a relatively slow speed when the aerodynamic control of the rudder has dwindled to nil and, as I said, is reliant on the breeze created by the prop. I don't think having the tail up in "clear air" has much meaning at that point.

M6RV6 wrote:Dirtstrip
I think you are missing the point here of the discussion.
When you plop down at a 3 point attitude you are there! Wind blowing you where it may?
How could you land a TW airplane in wind that is blowing faster than the takeoff speed of you plane if you did not keep the tail up?
You can come to a complete stop if need be in a wheel landing if you need to, never putting the tail down and never increasing the AOA to lift the aircraft of the ground, and have complete control until that time!
I think if you ever land where you have to have some human anchors hold on to your struts so you can put the tail down then you will see the difference.

JMHP
GT

Discretion is the better part of valor. Why would you, not how could you, is the question.