Hi Steve, Did he have you doing the MAF wheel landing technique?
Marty

Marty, I did not know they had a specific wheel landing technique. One of the guys at the airport did ask if Ron had showed me how the plane could wheel land itself, but I did not know what he was talking about and did not get a chance inquire further into what he meant. I hope to get back down there some time and will learn a lot more. What can you tell me about this procedure?

I had a friend that went down to Guatemala about 10 years ago to help fix up an MAF hangar and then rode around the country a little. I think he said the approach was pretty close to stall speed carrying power and when close to the ground adjusting the rate of descent to a 100 or 200 feet per minute. When the wheels touch push ahead on the yoke to pin the plane on the ground. With the low but constant rate of descent you don't have to guess when to flair like with a stall landing. The big thing is to perfect your approach so that you arrive at the runway where you want to touchdown. Don't try this close to stall speed approach in gusty conditions or you might get dropped when you don't want to. Yesterday when I landed my bushwheel equpped 180 on the grass I approached at a more normal 1.3Vso speed like I would for a stall landing but when close to the ground I rounded out to that 100 or 2 rate of descent and let it drift into the ground pushing the yoke ahead into a wheel landing. This is much easier than guessing the perfect flair height. If you try any of this don't do it in gusty conditions until you get comfortable. Bushwheels are the ticket to make landing easier.
Marty

Marty, what you described as the MAF landing is exactly what he was teaching. I did not get as much time working on the wheel landings as I would have liked (or needed) because he had a student coming in from Germany. Most of the wheel landings we did on concrete at my request, because that is where I need the most work. It did appear to me that after some more practice, this may be my hard surface landing method of choice. I felt I was more in command of my destiny than the usual pray and plop method. I imagine you have had the same big west winds I have been facing the last several days, (good for wind generators, bad for big tail skywagons), but if they let up I plan on pounding my N-S grass strip until I feel I have mastered the beast. On a side note, I felt the people down there were the first ones I had run across that really knew anything about Skywagons. I came back with a list of things for the shop to look at, even though it just came out of annual.

Steve, Sounds like you're headed in the right direction. People that say they wouldn't wheel land no matter what don't know what they're missing.
Marty

The other thing the MAF pilots will show you is to have it trimmed nose heavy when landing. In other words have it trimmed for 70 kts or so hands off then come in at 60 till 10 feet off then round it off and when it touches down it will pin itself. Dave Olson said when flying the 185 heavy that he would not touch the trim from cruise till landing, that is with a load and cg farther aft than normal. The other good thing this does is having the airplane properly configured for a go around, you won't be fighting the trim as much. this applies very specific to Skywagons and I suppose some others will act the same.

There's a pretty good essay about the MAF wheel landing techniques on the skywagons.org site, written by Bill White. I don't agree with quite all of it, but I use most of the technique described. If nothing else, makes for interesting reading- more so than the pro's & con's of car gas.

Eric

Haven't made a three point landing in 3 years since I read Bill White's article.
Good stuff.

Don't know if MAF invented this technique, but the tail low wheel landing technique has been around the Alaska backcountry for a long time, and it works well.

Trimming the aircraft nose down prior to touchdown does help sometimes. It's easier to simply relax that back pressure than it is to (in a timely fashion) push the stick forward at precisely the right moment.

this technique works well in many situations, particularly if you are in truly rough stuff, since this keeps the tailwheel off till absolutely necessary.

Actually, what drives most off airport types to this technique is that it affords the capability of being able to see over the nose, an essential if you are having to stab and steer around obstacles.

MTV

Three point landings are scary!!!!!

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:............................................................
Oh well, any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Right?

It's nice to be able to use the airplane again, too.

The beauty of flying a taildragger is the wheel landings. Only way to go.

Not that I necesarily agree with him, but a friend of mine (who's been flying tailwheel airplanes waaay longer than me) sez if you're gonna wheel land, you might as well fly a nosedragger. He's a firm believer in full-stall (aka 3 point) landings, according to him the big advantage is the lower speed at touch-down.
I do both wheelers & full-stalls, each type of landing has it's place.

Eric

Eric,

Your friend is missing the point, and the technique. The wheel landing technique being referred to here involves a very tail low attitude at touchdown, followed by rolling the aircraft up onto the mains.

In other words, in essence, you're getting the best of both landings: Slow touchdown, due to very nearly full stall touch, followed by getting the weight of the plane on the mains (which are the only ones with brakes), improving visibility over the nose, and spoiling what little lift is still there.

You are both missing out if you don't at least give this technique a try.

A lot of folks out there, who go into some really tough places, and very short places ALWAYS use this technique. Look at the Long Props and Big Rocks DVD. You don't see those guys 3 pointing, and they are landing waaaayyyy shorter than you or me. Well, me anyway,

MTV

Here is a link to an excellent thread on the MAF origins and technique, by Bill White.


http://www.skywagons.org/forum/showflat ... art=1&vc=1

In my line of work I can't think of very many instances were a three point landing has any advantages over wheelies.

I think people who are less proficient on the rudder pedals lean towards three pointers.

Supercubber wrote:I think people who are less proficient on the rudder pedals lean towards three pointers.

Exactly. That's why I rock the 3-pointers, they're easier, and I'm a low time noob.

After watching Big Rocks and Long Props it is obvious that this MAF technique is the cream of shortfield landing technique. Super slow, high angle of attack, but enough speed to bring the tail up when the brakes are stomped on and put max weight on the mains. Plus it just looks cool to see an airplane moving slowly, and balancing on the mains.

This is why I love taildraggers...what kind of conversation could we have about tri-gear technique? You either keep the nosewheel off the ground or you don't.

In a direct crosswind situation would you all agree that a wheel landing is better than a three point, especially if you are tipping your wing into the wind?

Tango

I think so.
Marty

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:..............
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I think it's easier to do a full stall landing in a nose wheeler than a taildragger.

Oh, no doubt. In a nosedragger, it doesn't matter too much if you keep the nose real high, a little high, or just plop down all three wheels at once- other than the speeds involved. The CG being ahead of the mains keeps the nose down so the AOA doesn't increase.
In a taildragger, you have to have the angle of attack squared away, no only the AOA but also the pitch movement-- in other words, if you try to 3-point and hit the mains first with the tailwheel still coming down, the AOA increases & you fly/bounce off. Same if you try to wheel-land while the tail is still coming down- the front of the airplane stops coming down but the tail keeps going, AOA increases, & you fly/bounce off. You can "full-stall" land & have the airplane behave like a nosedragger, if you hit the tailwheel first- then the AOA decreases & you stay on the ground, even if you had a little bounce action.
Just like landing a nosedragger is way more forgiving if you touch down in a crab- the CG being ahead of the mains tends to keep the airplane tracking straight ahead. But don't try that in your taildragger.
Sometimes I think short landing op's in a nosedragger might be easier than in a taildragger- it's much less critical with regards to precise AOA, just plop it on. This is no doubt what Cessna was referring to when they coined the phrase "land-o-matic" for their tricycle-geared 172 back in the mid- fifties.

Eric