silvaire wrote:

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.

Silvaire, your posts have made really good talking points but I have been credited by this misquote which could send some yet unposted replies my way undeservingly. Probably just by accident but none of this quote was mine.

born2flyak wrote:

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.

I need to point out that with the M6RV6 quote above, even though I did originally point out in my post what the key argument of the full time three pointers is, I did NOT take a position in line with it. I actually disagreed with it. I was misread by M6RV6 as having taken the opposite position when I was actually pointing out someone else's. I would have let that pass but his quote is being taken as my position now and being requoted as such. It is not, if you reread my original post you will see that. Before misquotes and misunderstanding takes off in its own direction I thought I'd better speak up. I'm just becoming this poor misunderstood BCP poster boy. It's sad.

If your counting on the tailwheel to keep you from ground looping, then there's a strong possibility of a ground loop in your future(not saying wheelies will immune you). I would assume (and I know the acronym for assume) that a big portion of ground loops may possibly be from relying on the tailwheel to much in some instances. Usually accompanied by letting her get to far out of line(swerve I guess woul be a descent term). Followed by slow or over/under corrected inputs in rudder, brakes and or power. Sometimes I believe people have an anxiety about landing a tailwheel and have a false sense of security associated with "getting the tailwheel down" and are relieved to be "done flying". Then the dance starts and can get out of hand quick. If you can control your plane well enough to stop it with the tail in the air, then set it down, I tend to lean towards the thought you have a better understanding of how to use all your tools till the end. Not recommending that for a standard landing configuration. Just that maybe it will help give you better full control understanding and ability of your plane and you. Here again maybe you can see the trend I try to bring up. No wheelie guy is saying only wheelie an 3pt has no place. But 3pt only crowd seems to not recognize that maybe,just maybe, there's an application or use for wheeling. That's pretty much where I scratch my head and wonder. And I have yet to be convinced of this concept. Keeping an open mind and rationilizing all comments. Good banter.

I still maintain that differences in aircraft also factor into this debate.

My Kitfox being fairly short coupled and having very small tail surfaces does not respond well at all to wheel landings.

This has been one of my favorite threads on BCP sofar. I've read all 5 pages at this point a few times. I'm a relatively low time TW pilot, under 100 hrs in my 180H. By MTV's estimate a "student" and I'm sure I will consider myself such for sometime to come.

I was given my TW training by Rick Ruess & Hiedi Ruess of Artic Flyers in Anchorage. In my limited experience in a TW or any aircraft for that matter, I find it very hard to accept that there is only one way to do almost anything, (in this case full stall or wheelie). I think those folks that adamantly stick to one or the other, may one day find them selves in a predicament wishing they had practiced the other. I pity those people who are so close minded that they cannot see the wisdom of another opinion.

P.S. I'm very intrigued with MTV's discription of how he trains his TW students, maybe one day I can get some instruction from you MTV.

Clear Skies

180jocky

Av8r3400 wrote:I still maintain that differences in aircraft also factor into this debate.

Agreed... In my initial response I indicated that I have flown aircraft that prop size alone dictated that 3 points were the only prudent way to land.

dirt, I apologize if I have misquoted you, I can't figure any of that convoluted quote thing out anymore

born2flyak wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:...
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.

your location being what it is, I am surprised you would ask that. Not because a person shouldn't try for a better option, but because when the options are spread farther apart, you only have to fly long enough to find yourself in such a predicament.
I have been fortunate enough to have room to land it into the wind across the strip or at an alternate on many occasions , I have also had to call the flight service cat, or a fueler to assist me with wing walker(s) on a few others. Some times you just have to accept the cards you were dealt and make it work.

silvaire wrote: how can you discount the control generated by the tailwheel being in physical contact with the ground?

to answer this I will go back to Av8rs quote.... I believe '55's work airplane, and I know my work airplane have nothing going to the tailwheel but a couple centering spring. Absolutely no steering help gonna come from that thing. I also know that in a pre 55 C180 (and many, many more airplanes) if you are parked on bush wheels your slow speed tail wheel steering is nil.
Bottom line, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just responding to your questions. You choose to drive your plane with your tailwheel, which is wonderful! I choose to treat my tailwheel like a castor, and use other controls to steer. So far so good

Take care, Rob

But, Rob, I assume that your work airplane, as most, has a LOCKABLE tailwheel?

MTV

Mike, Your Bad!!!(Lockable) you do like to stir it when it gets calm!!
GT

But, Rob, I assume that your work airplane, as most, has a LOCKABLE tailwheel?

MTV

Sometimes. Never count on it.

55wagon wrote:If your counting on the tailwheel to keep you from ground looping, then there's a strong possibility of a ground loop in your future(not saying wheelies will immune you). I would assume (and I know the acronym for assume) that a big portion of ground loops may possibly be from relying on the tailwheel to much in some instances. Usually accompanied by letting her get to far out of line(swerve I guess woul be a descent term). Followed by slow or over/under corrected inputs in rudder, brakes and or power....

Okay but that's not what we're talking about, we're not talking about sloppy control. we're talking about x-wind effect and specifically unknown gusting x-wind effect when you have slowed to a point that the rudder has lost most of it's aerodynamic influence. That's the point where I think a wheelie could bite you and having the tailwheel on the ground would be an asset.

I know there have been some mis-quotes here but it's not a big deal. I'm not a 3-pointer fanatic I'm just playing the Devil's advocate to get the discussion going and it's worked cause here we are on page five and what the heck else would we be doing otherwise?

I can believe all this bla bla bla I am reading in this thread. Go fly, land, and do it over and over.

Talking on the internet won't make you better. I fly a lot, most of us who fly don't care how you land, as long as your out there doing it.

Turn off the computer and go fly.

G'Day

Anyone else besides me make the mistake to land 3 point on rough off airport?
Yee haw!

I posted earlier on the differences between having the plane in the same attitude at different power settings, whether that be relatively flat or nose-high in the 3-point attitude. I know some of you could relate to that, but I'm not sure others got what I was trying to convey.

I am going to offer another perspective about the landing phase. In a similar way (I know it is not exactly so extend me some latitude here), the landing is the reverse of the takeoff.

When I'm trying to takeoff really short, or when the wind conditions are favorable and stable, I may elect to hold the stick aft and let the plane lift off at the minimum possible flying speed in the 3-point attitude.

In a steady crosswind condition, it is still possible to lift off at minimum speed because the consequences of being nose high and slow in this situation is not too terrible in the steady wind since one can transition into a crab or even a slip to maintain runway alignment and control authority is not compromised.

However, there is one situation where I believe it doesn't make sense to take off in the 3-point attitude at the lowest possible airspeed and that is in very gusty conditions +/- any crosswind component. I think every instructor out there will tell you to accelerate to a higher speed than normal before rotation. In a taildragger, this means that you will need to fly the tail with the mains planted on the runway before rotation otherwise you will start flying and this will require the yoke to be pushed forward. This tail high attitude helps force the mains onto the runway helping achieve directional stability and airspeed that will be necessary to keep the plane under control as you transition into the unstable air. Deliberate transition from ground to air with excess airspeed is important in unstable air. The last thing I want to be doing on takeoff in gusty air is mushing around just above the ground at stall speed while wind gusts are forcing me to keep the plane under control as I accelerate out of ground effect. Many people crash trying to do this in bad air.

Landing in gusty conditions is (basically) the reverse of takeoff. Why would I want to be struggling to slow the plane down to stall speed in dirty air with the wind pushing me all over the place when I could create at least one leg to lean on by planting the mains? I personally don't like showing that much wing while getting hammered by then wind going stop to stop on the yoke.

Think about an aborted takeoff with the tail high. If I can get the plane to accelerate to a takeoff speed with the tail high and then abort the takeoff and get the tailwheel back down, I have essentially converted the takeoff to a wheel landing without the actual takeoff. Every pilot needs to be able to do this. Unless, of course, their takeoffs are always performed in the 3-point attitude.

OregonMaule wrote:I can believe all this bla bla bla I am reading in this thread. Go fly, land, and do it over and over.

Talking on the internet won't make you better. I fly a lot, most of us who fly don't care how you land, as long as your out there doing it.

Turn off the computer and go fly.

G'Day

Okay so explain to me - why are you here reading this drivel? And furthermore, why are you responding to it?

We do turn the computer off and fly, but not ALL the time. There's nothing wrong with this discussion. We're expressing ourselves.

Squash wrote:...Why would I want to be struggling to slow the plane down to stall speed in dirty air with the wind pushing me all over the place when I could create at least one leg to lean on by planting the mains? I personally don't like showing that much wing while getting hammered by then wind going stop to stop on the yoke

You made a good point there Squash

Rob wrote:

Av8r3400 wrote:I still maintain that differences in aircraft also factor into this debate.

Agreed... In my initial response I indicated that I have flown aircraft that prop size alone dictated that 3 points were the only prudent way to land.

dirt, I apologize if I have misquoted you, I can't figure any of that convoluted quote thing out anymore

born2flyak wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:...
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.

your location being what it is, I am surprised you would ask that. Not because a person shouldn't try for a better option, but because when the options are spread farther apart, you only have to fly long enough to find yourself in such a predicament.
I have been fortunate enough to have room to land it into the wind across the strip or at an alternate on many occasions , I have also had to call the flight service cat, or a fueler to assist me with wing walker(s) on a few others. Some times you just have to accept the cards you were dealt and make it work.

I figured it was probably an extreme example but one that was probably learned by experience. I just know that I've been there and done it (flying a 207 though) in winds blowing in excess of 50 knots to work on our 185 that had been down for weeks with a collapsed gear at Lime Village in Jan 2012 (I wasn't flying it when it collapsed, but I was flying it the day before ). The outboard casting handled the landing fine but failed when turning around on the ramp.

It was a multi-day project at -25F trying to repair it and we were close to getting it flyable (no prop strike, nothing contacted anything it shouldn't), but today when we arrived the first item on the agenda was to lower it off the wing jack and try to turn it 180 degrees into the wind. Luckily we had placed a big front end loader tire under the belly before it was blown off the jack suddenly and swung all the way around into the wind. Throwing in the towel, we secured it the best we could and while doing so, noticed the 207 departing the ramp backwards, downwind, without us and at a pretty good clip. We chased it down like greased lighting even in our bunny boots and grabbed a hold, dragging along with it a ways until it stopped just before going into the snow berm beside the runway. We figured it had the right idea and decided we should get the heck out of here too.

We had to get some local help to push the 207 to the far end of the runway backwards because it couldn't be turned crosswind or downwind. Some very intrepid passengers had their doubts about the flight but rode back to McGrath with us anyway. I was flying the director of maintenance/owner/pilot and we both agreed we wouldn't try that ever again! We ended up getting the 185 helicoptered out to Big Lake for repairs.

Thanks Born2flyAK...

Great story showing off the glamorous side of flying for a living in AK. Fun to remember back on while sitting here sipping coffee with the thermostat set at 70 F.

Gump

Silvaire
"Okay but that's not what we're talking about, we're not talking about sloppy control. we're talking about x-wind effect and specifically unknown gusting x-wind effect when you have slowed to a point that the rudder has lost most of it's aerodynamic influence. That's the point where I think a wheelie could bite you and having the tailwheel on the ground would be an asset."

Didn't originally start off as xwind only situations. Just turned into an even more so reason. But when my rudder is done I would have to say I'm relying alot more heavily on my brakes than my tailwheel. As I run out of rudder I start applying brake. I have yet to count on my tailwheel to keep me from ground looping or running off the runway. I would say the tailwheel is prob the least used,necessary tool on the and for landing a actually. If I had to pick one control or part that I had to get rid of and still land. It'd be that. Rather keep my controls,mains,brakes. Could land just fine and set it on the stinger without tearing anything up. Wich is the point of all of this not tearing anything up.

55wagon wrote:Silvaire
"Okay but that's not what we're talking about, we're not talking about sloppy control. we're talking about x-wind effect and specifically unknown gusting x-wind effect when you have slowed to a point that the rudder has lost most of it's aerodynamic influence. That's the point where I think a wheelie could bite you and having the tailwheel on the ground would be an asset."

Didn't originally start off as xwind only situations. Just turned into an even more so reason. But when my rudder is done I would have to say I'm relying alot more heavily on my brakes than my tailwheel. As I run out of rudder I start applying brake. I have yet to count on my tailwheel to keep me from ground looping or running off the runway. I would say the tailwheel is prob the least used,necessary tool on the and for landing a actually. If I had to pick one control or part that I had to get rid of and still land. It'd be that. Rather keep my controls,mains,brakes. Could land just fine and set it on the stinger without tearing anything up. Wich is the point of all of this not tearing anything up.

55 wagon
I'm sure there are a few on here who have had to come home with no tail wheel at one time or another, I know of someone who tied a short piece of drift wood to the place where the spring used to be to get home. Made it all the way from takeoff to the Hangar before using the tail skid.
There was a helluva onshore wind on the beach, might have been why there was no tail wheel??
Damn Glass Balls!!
GT

Haha. Ya, been there a time or two myself for one thing or another. Maybe there should be an alaskan bushskid Go back to the old days. Lol