I'm sure this is akin to dumping the flaps...mostly personal preference when you get right down to it, but I have heard endless conflicting theories on trimming for landing.

One well respected aviator states it's important to trim for landing to maintain a consistent landing speed. Another respected aviator has told me that by using the trim tab instead of hand pressure, you are actually reducing the amount of elevator authority you have access to, which becomes critical at low speeds.

On another side, some say it's better to trim so if you're distracted, the plane will continue to fly as you intended it to. While others say if you're trimmed for landing and you have to go around, you'll have to fight the over-trim and risk going up into a stall. Also, they claim that holding back pressure is another way to gage how the airplane is flying...a sensation that trimming deprives you of.

I've landed with full trim and with no trim, and I seemed to prefer full trim, but I see the potential down sides. So now I'm landing with trim about half way between cruise and hands-off landing attitude...it reduces some of the pressure but I still have to pull back on the stick.

Of course this only matters with rather small planes...I've tried to land a c180 without using the trim wheel and found it almost impossible. Any thoughts?

ravi wrote:Of course this only matters with rather small planes...I've tried to land a c180 without using the trim wheel and found it almost impossible. Any thoughts?

That's it exactly... You can get by flying with the trim just about anywhere in a small airplane and have enough muscle to overcome it take-off, cruise, or landing. Move up in weight and/or speed and it's a whole different ball game.

In the C180 you speak of... Here's the direct quote from the POH:

Since the ability of the elevator to produce a stall is dependent upon the adjustable stabilizer being set for "AIRPLANE NOSE UP", it is important that the airplane be completely trimmed in the approach glide. If the airplane fails to land three point with the control wheel fully back, it is probable that the adjustable stabilizer is not adjusted for the landing condition.

Set the trim for what you want the airplane to do. Making a go-around? Burn it into memory/reflex to roll the trim forward after hitting full throttle and dumping a couple notches of flap.

Gump

Well ravi let's see. I can land the 140, 150, 152, 172 without using much trim. The 180, 182, 185, 205, 206. I trim the heck out of. I know 205/206 with just 1 or 2 people I trim full nose up and land with a little power. With a load I trim to 80/85 indicated hands off.

So I would suppose the larger the plane and depending on the weight & balance would dictate how much trim to use. Just MHO.

Fly safe, Bub

ravi wrote: I still have to pull back on the stick.

Really pay attention to that too when working with your C140, and the other. Not being able to three point may be something as simple as you're not quite pulling full aft elevator. Guys with nose wheels can get lazy about that and get away with it. You can't in a conventional gear airplane. Stick FULL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gump

I think you're right on both counts. It probably has a lot to do with personal preference and the type of plane being flown. I'm more of a "seat of the pants" pilot and I like to feel the plane. I don't like to fight it though. I'll play with the trim as I'm slowing the plane on down wind. When I pull the first notch of flaps in I'll adjust the trim and again when I pull the second notch in. The nose on my M@#$% wants to pitch up fairly dramatically at a cruise trim setting when flaps are applied. I'd have my hands full trying to keep the thing flying without the help of trim. On long final I'll trim to 75 or 80 mph and then I'll just ignore it from then on. The rest is done by "feel".
On a go-around, I'd just have to fly the plane and deal with the trim as soon as possible.
I also played with the trim on my Luscombe but it was a bit easier. One setting would be good for take-off and cruise and all the way back would be perfect for landing.

Stick FULL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ho-le-crap...grenade just launched into the Wheel-Landers camp. Stand by for return fire!

{I got your back Gump!}

Capt. Kirk wrote:Ho-le-crap...grenade just launched into the Wheel-Landers camp. Stand by for return fire!

{I got your back Gump!}

Thanks Captain!!!!

Wheel landing is a whole different technique, and a whole different story. A guy's gotta be proficient in both to get the most out of his conventional geared airplane.

But back to full-stall, three-point landings... If the stick isn't full aft, and airplane not stalled as you touch, it's then that you get bounces, skips, whatever, that can really mess up your day. Do I still screw up and skip one in every now and then (OK, all the f**king time)... Damn right I do, and it's then that I get pissed at myself, jam forward elevator and stick it on with a wheel landing.

Gump

Gump,
I'd like to discuss wheel landings but I'm afraid...so, so afraid to even mention it
I'm sure there's a couple dozen threads already discussing the subject here...but what fun is that?
I tried wheel landings in my Luscombe years ago and I thought "what the hell am I trying to do here? Am I trying to land or am I trying to fly?" From then on it's always been 3 point for me.
I've discussed this with other people in the past and those in favor of wheel landings always seem to rest their arguement on "Well, wheel landings are safer in cross and gusty winds". I'm an educated man and no matter how I look at this arguement I'm just not seeing the logic behind it...I wish I could.
In a 3 point landing, the plane is done flying and any forward motion is helping to hold the tail wheel on the ground (stick all the way back) where it can do most good in keeping the plane straight. You'd have the rudder and tailwheel working in combination to control the plane...that's good isn't it? In a wheel landing, the tail is more susceptable to gusts...etc (at least in my mind) than it would be with the tail wheel anchored to the ground. As speed dies off so does rudder authority which (again, in my mind) increases the danger of something going wrong. During a wheel landing, there will be a moment when the configuration of the plane is exactly the same as it is during a 3 point landing...i.e. forward speed the same, stick all the way back...etc. At this moment, the risk of something going wrong would be the same, right? The only difference is that a 3 point landing will be stopped 1000' sooner. Seems to me the goal is to land the thing...not to drive around the ariport like a two wheeled wheelbarrow.
One of BD Maule's boys said "A wheel landing is a ground loop waiting to happen" I've never ground looped and my wheel landing experience spans exactly 2 landings (the last of the upholstery will be removed from my ass next week) so maybe I have no right to judge but I tend to side with that quote...I'll just keep planting 3 wheels down...that is, when I'm on wheels.

I read something somewhere sometime about a modification the Blue Angles made to their F/A-18s. They add a spring to pull the stick forward. The reasoning is their pilot is able to make more precise adjustments to a force that is in one direction instead alternating back and forth between pushing and pulling. Maybe that feeling of better control is the human factor that causes pilots to add a little nose-down trim when landing.

Capt. Kirk wrote: In a wheel landing, the tail is more susceptable to gusts...etc (at least in my mind) than it would be with the tail wheel anchored to the ground. As speed dies off so does rudder authority which (again, in my mind) increases the danger of something going wrong. During a wheel landing, there will be a moment when the configuration of the plane is exactly the same as it is during a 3 point landing...i.e. forward speed the same, stick all the way back...etc. At this moment, the risk of something going wrong would be the same, right? The only difference is that a 3 point landing will be stopped 1000' sooner. Seems to me the goal is to land the thing...not to drive around the ariport like a two wheeled wheelbarrow.

Oh my.. What a can of worms!!!

I like wheel landings, when I want to do wheel landings. I like three pointers if I want to do three pointers. It all depends on what you're trying to do and weather conditions on your landing surface.

When it's windy, really windy, I will as a rule wheel land. If it works right and I have my speeds nailed, I'll plant the upwind wheel, push it on with forward elevator, and see how my directional control is feeling. If all is well, I'll dump flaps, start braking and let the downwind wheel down and really get on the brakes. It's as short, or many times I think shorter, than three point, and a lot of times the tail will still be in the air as the airplane is coming to a complete stop.

The thinking in three pointers in windy conditions is that for a brief period of time you're just a passenger as the airplane transitions from full stall in the air to rolling across the ground as a clumsy wheelbarrow. With the wheel landing you are in complete control (yee haw!!!) the entire landing sequence and with just a handfull of throttle be up and flying if things don't feel right.

I haven't flown out of FAI for years now and don't know a soul there as far as CFI's go. But I'm betting there's some good guys there who know this shit, and would be more than happy to share. Go out and work it. Do the old drill... One wheel down, up, other wheel down, up, on and on and on. As an added bonus it teaches you the feel of ground effect and will help make you comfortable flying in that environment.

Gump

Gump,
I'll be flying floats for the forseeable future so I'm just posing this for the sake of discussion and my desire to try to understand the other side of the coin.
I've landed in really (cross) windy conditions in Weed Calif. in my luscombe. I looked like I was on "dancin' with the stars" in that cockpit and it even got to the point were there were a chirp or two of skidding tires as I used the heel brakes to keep things in line. When I got stopped, my brother had to get out of the plane on the runway to help me get it turned around so I could head back to the tie-down. This was a 3 point landing...I couldn't imagine doing the same in a 2 point configuration. It may have very likely been a 2 wheel landing but the two wheels were the right main and the tail wheel there for a moment. I think the landing you discribed was in worse wind than what I went through...at some point a taxiway starts looking pretty good.

The thinking in three pointers in windy conditions is that for a brief period of time you're just a passenger as the airplane transitions from full stall in the air to rolling across the ground as a clumsy wheelbarrow. With the wheel landing you are in complete control (yee haw!!!) the entire landing sequence and with just a handfull of throttle be up and flying if things don't feel right.

The above quote is right along the lines of what I've been hearing from others who (unlike you) say "screw 3 point landings" but I think I'm still missing something. I don't think I've ever felt like a "passenger" when doing my 3 pointers...I have brakes to my disposal, I have a slightly functional rudder, I've got that little steerable wheel.. and if the shit starts hitting the fan, I've got the throttle which will get me airborn again in short order. The logic I'm trying to understand is (again) that regardless of which of the two ways a plane is landed, each will be in a 3 point configuration at some point, each will have the same air going over the tail, each will go from flying to landed. Prior to that moment, in a wheel landing, the tail is flying nicely and the pilot has complete control. At some point the pilot has got to slow down and, with that reduction in speed, there is a reduction in control authority. There will come a time when the wheel lander is depending on that tail wheel for directional control. In a 3 point landing...the bandaid is getting ripped off...in a wheel landing, the bandaid is getting peeled off slowly. I'm not saying one is better than the other but I won't be doing any wheel landings because 3 pointers have served me perfectly over the years.

Capt. Kirk wrote:The logic I'm trying to understand is (again) that regardless of which of the two ways a plane is landed, each will be in a 3 point configuration at some point, each will have the same air going over the tail, each will go from flying to landed. .

The difference is, in that in the wheel landing the tail is touching the ground at way slower a speed than in a three point landing.

Three point it at 50 KTS and the airplane is now a wheelbarrow at 50 KTS with the tailwheel trying to keep up with rudder as you get blown around. Lots of times rudder and tailwheel need to be going in the opposite direction to stay centered on the runway. Wheel it in, and all you have to deal with are the two mains, each with brakes, and the rudder. To me, much simpler and a lot more stable. And by pushing forward and putting all the weight on the mains, much better braking action, and less ground roll.

Thing is too, you can wheel it at a speed right at the stall with the tail just about to kiss the ground. No longer ground time to get stopped. When it's windy, add a few KTS to make things stable, and feel the ground out until YOU are ready to plant the thing. Bottom line is make the airplane do what you want it to do.

Gump

Bottom line is make the airplane do what you want it to do.

This is exactly what my flight instructor said years ago and I live by it.
I'm a "three-pointer" and I haven't had any trouble getting the plane to do what I've wanted it to so I'll just stick with what I'm good at. Actually, I'm a "two-pointer" now...left keel and right keel

You've got a couple billion more hours than I have and I respect your viewpoint...thanks Gump.

Capt. Kirk wrote:

Bottom line is make the airplane do what you want it to do.

This is exactly what my flight instructor said years ago and I live by it.
I'm a "three-pointer" and I haven't had any trouble getting the plane to do what I've wanted it to so I'll just stick with what I'm good at. Actually, I'm a "two-pointer" now...left keel and right keel

You've got a couple billion more hours than I have and I respect your viewpoint...thanks Gump.

Kirk, what about your famous 1 ski landing technique?! Was the tailwheel down when the ski touched?

I think it depends a lot on the aircraft too. Only tailwheel I've flown was a Citabria, which is pretty well mannered and has very good rudder control in 3 point. But I've heard that some planes, like the C-170, have limited rudder authority in the 3 point attitude, since it's being blanketed by the fuselage (I heard that was the reason the 180/185 has such a tall tail).

And to get back to the original topic. I'm fortunate in that in my 150 the full flap, power off approch trim puts me between Vx and Vy on a go-round. So yes, I trim for hands off on approch. It lets me control the flare with my finger tips for one thing. And I try to come as close to a "3 point" as possible without scraping the tail But in gusty conditions I do land a bit hotter and try to use just enough flare to set the mains on first, then drop the nose, dump the flaps and hit the brakes. After each landing I ask myself "would that have been a good landing in a taildragger?" If the answer is no, it's time for some touch and goes.

Phil

I trim for a hands off approach as well, easy enough to over ride and then trim on the way out if needed, at least in my aircraft.

It depends enormously on the aircraft. If you have plenty of rudder authority when the tail is down then a three point may work well in your aircraft. If you don't then well it doesn't. Some airplanes just don't like to wheel land. My Maule for instance wheels much better if I keep 1500 rpm or better until the mains are on the ground. It lands much faster and needs more runway in a wheel landing than a three point. The Maule just seems to like to land tail first.
The Thrushes I fly on the other hand seem to like to be wheeled on, in a three point configuration you get the pre-stall buffet prior to touch down and it seems to kinda "plop" down. Now some of you are going to say "dumb a**, that's the point" but the with the Thrush it's harder to time the "plop" to make it smooth. It will wheel on in a tail low attitude just as smooth as glass and only just a little faster than the three point. So I always wheel on a Thrush.
Ravi are you flying a Maule? If you crank in all of the up trim in a 235 Maule it's a nice approach because it takes almost no back pressure to keep the speed right where you want it, but if you give it full throttle for a go around, it takes an enormous amount of down pressure to hold the nose down. a lot more pressure than I have ever put into a control system before. So much so that it is scary, I don't like it at all. Ray Maule teaches to trim all of the way up, Jeremy Ainsworth is very much against any up trim. Both considered to be Maule experts and have opposite opinions. I've tried both way's and don't like either, I trim somewhere in the middle. I like to be holding it off in a wheel landing so that relaxing pressure results in a little nose down trim for a wheel landing.
The fact that there are so many way's to handle a conventional landing gear aircraft is part of what makes them so fun. Try em all and pick the one that YOU like.

I trim to neutral yoke preasure for whatever my approach speed is. Usually my slowest approach speed is arround 60 to 62 mph or just above the 60 hash mark. that is with full flaps and 11" MP. With the trimable stabilizer on the early 182's this is quite easy. I do not think it is possibel to do this on the later 182's especialy the 62 through 64 birds.

I landed at Sacramento in this plane once and the tower was a bit upset at my approach speed so I was going to make the first turn off to try to help them out. They told me to continue to the high speed turn off so I got airborn again and touched down slow just before the turn out and that did not please them either. They need a grass stip at places like that.

Tim

BD said "ker-plunk", tail wheel about 4 inches ahead of the mains...and with the trim all the way back you are out of elevator there, too. I like Jeremy's method, which is somewhere in between, so if you have to add power you don't have the excess yoke pressure and you still have some elevator authority upon landing. Correct me if I am mis-stating you Jeremy. Most everyone develops their own method of trim to adapt to their own method of landing. I was trained in the three point "Maule" method and it has a lot of value in most situations and that I have learned. Then, there are some situations where a wheel landing is going to make your life easier for a moment.

I have used both methods in my M5 and as stated, something in the middle seems to work pretty well. A little trim to take some yoke pressure off on the initial set up seems to be ok.

Setting the trip at neutral and hauling back on the yoke at low speeds is not a big deal.

Not having a lot of trim dialed in is a GOOD thing when something unexpected ( deer, elk, pothole, sprinkler head, etc. ) suddenly appears in the touchdown or roll out area. Keeping the nose down, managing flaps, gaining airspeed, and avoiding the trees is enough to deal with without having to spin the trim wheel as well.

Running out of elevator is "interesting".

TD

TomD wrote:Running out of elevator is "interesting".
TD

And expensive. Don't ask.