In a word: No.

Crosswinds do not require any different technique NECESSARILY than does operating with no wind.

Now, if you have a GUSTY crosswind, you may want to consider a wheel landing.

But, frankly, the answer to this is so dependant on the type of aircraft that it is not really possible to come up with a blanket statement.

For example: Hootin crosswind, with fair gust factor, gravel surface, Cessna 185: I'd probably land three point in this scenario.

Pavement, probably something different.

MTV

When landing a nosewheel I always come in with a little power and lightly touch the mains first holding the nosewheel off and tracking the centerline with the pedals. Then slowly bleed off the throttle while holding the stick back and the nosewheel ever so lightly comes down on it's own, making it hardly noticeable when it touches.

On crosswinds in the taildragger I always use an extended final approach to get a feel for the winds and to allow me to make the proper crosswind corrections cancelling drift. Coming in with enough power to allow me to point it where I want and touching the upwind main first before sticking the rest on.

Another subject that draws a lot of differing opinions is whether or not to use flaps on crosswinds. I myself do not like crosswinds in a taildragger with anything more than first notch as I like to keep the tail flying strong allowing me to make instant corrections.

mtv wrote:In a word: No.

Crosswinds do not require any different technique NECESSARILY than does operating with no wind.

Now, if you have a GUSTY crosswind, you may want to consider a wheel landing.

But, frankly, the answer to this is so dependant on the type of aircraft that it is not really possible to come up with a blanket statement.

For example: Hootin crosswind, with fair gust factor, gravel surface, Cessna 185: I'd probably land three point in this scenario.

Pavement, probably something different.

MTV

Is this a seat of the pants type of thing that you develop after a lot of experience in different aircraft? What about the same scenario in a J3, - what factors in to a decision like that? Could you elaborate a little more. Thanks,

Tango

This is precisely why I STRONGLY recommend that anyone who purchases or starts flying a new aircraft type, particularly a tailwheel aircraft, find an instructor who is VERY familiar with the particular type (note that I did not suggest some high time guy who THINKS he knows everything there is to know about every aircraft in the world) aircraft, and get some good quality dual instruction. One component of that dual instruction, one would hope, would be a really thorough introduction to crosswind operations.

A J-3 is VERY different from a 185, for MANY reasons, not least of all is wing loading, total mass, spring gear, power, stall speed, etc.

Every airplane has a few "characteristics" which may respond better to one technique over another. It certainly isn't rocket science, and an experienced pilot can in fact figure most of this out, if he or she has some time to play with the plane and learn its characteristics.

But EVERY airplane is a little different as well.

I own a 170, and when I told that to a local, VERY experienced tailwheel guy, he told me with a straight face that the 170 is the nastiest handling tailwheel airplane he'd ever flown. Turns out he's only flown one, and I am certain that that airplane had some gear alignment problems, from his description of the handling. Those are around, so don't make assumptions in ANY new airplane you crawl into.

The best way to figure this stuff out is to get a good, comprehensive check out by someone who knows the type, then fly it as much as possible to get a better feel for what it likes, and what technique works best for you.

What works best for me may not be what you'd prefer, either.

Doubt if that helps, but......

MTV

mtv wrote:Crosswinds do not require any different technique NECESSARILY than does operating with no wind.
MTV

I think we would all agree that there are many more accidents due to botched crosswind landings than normal landings.

If you fly a long crosscountry and find winds at your destination close to the crosswind limitations of your aircraft, you better have some additional skills in reserve not normally used for "no wind" landings.

Trying to find a qualified tailwheel instructor of any kind is becoming increasingly harder to find. If you find a pilot who has a lot of experience in the same type of aircraft it doesn't hurt to hitch a ride to watch how they handle different situations. You can learn little things from just about every pilot you fly with if you pay attention, whether they are things you want to use or not use.

From November 1st -March 1st we have some of the most demanding wind conditions anywhere combined with high elevation airfields. The major air carrier manufacturers bring their aircraft here for crosswind certifications. The last of which was the 777. If one had a choice between flying with a high time seasoned pilot here in type versus a CFI from Kansas, well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

What I was referring to was the choice between wheel landings and three point landings in regards to a steady crosswind.

I did not suggest, nor do I want to imply that landing in crosswinds, whether steady or gusty doesn't require additional skills on the part of the pilot.

What I was trying to get at is that there is this misconception that a crosswind is a crosswind, and you always use a wheel landing in every crosswind situation. I disagree with that notion.

My point was that a steady crosswind does not require that the pilot carry any additional speed into the flare at all.

A gusty crosswind does, however.

So, my point was that to suggest that wheel landings are always the choice du jour during ALL crosswinds is, in my opinion an inordinately general response.

Crosswinds are a VERY variable event, and the techniques necessary to compensate for them are equally varied.

As to finding a qualified instructor becoming more difficult, that may be, but there is no lack of well qualified instructors, regardless of what aircraft type you own. I never cease to be amazed by people who will pay $50 K for an airplane and then flatly refuse to spend $500 and change to fly across the country (commercial) and get some decent instruction.

I flew with a fellow a while back who had a Beaver. Had never gotten a checkout, and he wasn't a very experienced fellow. When I asked why he hadn't gotten a good checkout, his response was he'd have had to travel to do that. We did a flight review, and did a mini checkout in the process. If I was him, I'd go find more instruction.

Seems like penny wise and pound foolish to me, but a very common affliction, methinks.

MTV

mtv wrote:This is precisely why I STRONGLY recommend that anyone who purchases or starts flying a new aircraft type, particularly a tailwheel aircraft, find an instructor who is VERY familiar with the particular type (note that I did not suggest some high time guy who THINKS he knows everything there is to know about every aircraft in the world) aircraft, and get some good quality dual instruction. One component of that dual instruction, one would hope, would be a really thorough introduction to crosswind operations.

A J-3 is VERY different from a 185, for MANY reasons, not least of all is wing loading, total mass, spring gear, power, stall speed, etc.

Every airplane has a few "characteristics" which may respond better to one technique over another. It certainly isn't rocket science, and an experienced pilot can in fact figure most of this out, if he or she has some time to play with the plane and learn its characteristics.

But EVERY airplane is a little different as well.

I own a 170, and when I told that to a local, VERY experienced tailwheel guy, he told me with a straight face that the 170 is the nastiest handling tailwheel airplane he'd ever flown. Turns out he's only flown one, and I am certain that that airplane had some gear alignment problems, from his description of the handling. Those are around, so don't make assumptions in ANY new airplane you crawl into.

The best way to figure this stuff out is to get a good, comprehensive check out by someone who knows the type, then fly it as much as possible to get a better feel for what it likes, and what technique works best for you.

What works best for me may not be what you'd prefer, either.

Doubt if that helps, but......

MTV

It helps - great advice - thanks for taking the time to post-

Tango

Okay, Stand by for pot stirring.
1.) The number of instructors in the USA capable of providing initial to advanced tailwheel training is very small. Be careful of the advice you take. (including mine.) There are a small number of bush flying schools. If you must have instruction, take out the VISA and pay an expert.
2.) People say the advantage of wheel landing in a crosswind is better control authority, due to the higher approach speed. Assuming you can wheel or three point in any configuration, (I have yet to fly a plane that can't.) don't you have to decelerate through the same speed range either way?
Planes aren't squirrely until they get slowed down to the point that the aerodynamic controls are losing effectiveness. At this point, if the nose starts to turn, brakes are the way to regain control. I think it's better to have the tail down at that point, but that's just me.
If a person wanted to argue that a wheel landing provided better over the nose visibility, or was more compatible with an increased approach speed due to gusty conditions, I could understand the logic, but the touchdown speed thing doesn't fly with me.
Most of these arguments about crosswinds, are the result of poor technique. I know, because I used to make them too. The fact remains, that if the fuselage is parallel to the runway, and not drifting at touch down, it doesn't matter if you three point or wheel land the plane will roll srtaight.

I wanted to bring up another point about windy operations: Gust additives.
At work we add half of the steady and all of the gust, up to a maximum of twenty knots. So if it's ten gusting to twenty we add fifteen knots to the approach speed. Five for the steady and ten for the gust. I think this is a fairly standard practice. Be careful with it in light planes.
A 737 approach speed is around 130 knots, so a 20 knot additive is around a 15 percent increase in speed. If you were to use the same strategy in a Maule at 55 knots, the percentage is much higher. (36%) The plane just won't land that fast in landing configuration.
My point is, I don't think you should ever increase approach speed by more than 20% for wind.
I watched a 207 wipe out his nose gear trying to land in high wind is Las Vegas a few years ago. He came in really fast and tried to force the plane onto the runway. Three porpoises later the nose gear gave up. I saw a Warrior do the same thing today, he stuck that nose gear on the runway and drove about two thousand feet on the nose wheel alone.
I hope that I've just seen some isolated cases, but I though I'd throw my .02 in anyway.

Speedbump,

Good points. You are absolutely correct that most ground loop accidents happen at very slow speeds, NOT at or right after touchdown. I also agree fully with the notion that if you keep it straight you are golden.

Don't abandon aerodynamic effects, weak as they may be, however, and just get on the brakes. Ailerons in these things are still very useful at a walking pace, particularly in a wind.

Once the tail is down, you must use the elevator to KEEP it down. If its steerable, it'll steer with weight on it. It won't help at all if it's not pinned. I ride with a lot of folks who are used to nosewheel airplanes and they simply relax once on the ground. That does NOT work well in a taildragger.

Keep the ailerons into the wind. Depending on whether your plane has differential ailerons or not, this may or may not help a LOT, but it will always help. That is full deflection. Ask the old C-46 guys in the crowd how they slow a ground loop, with really crappy brakes: "drive it into the ditch". This puts the outside aileron down and creates a little adverse yaw. Every little bit helps.

In most of these small aircraft, half the gust factor or if its really wild, the full gust factor is enough. Being light and nimble, most of these airplanes will recover quite nicely to a big gust with just a bit of extra speed. As you say, stack on a pile of extra speed, and you're hosed in a small airplane, and you don't need it.

Don't forget those control inputs!! Right into the chocks or the hangar.

You might be surprised at how many very experienced instructors there are around as well. It takes some research, but these boards help, as do type specific clubs.

MTV

MTV, thanks for the clarification....your absolutely right!

Pilots should be encouraged to seek out skilled instruction no matter how far they have to travel. They would feel a lot more confident with their abilities and at the same time help in keeping taildragger insurance affordable.

I think regardless of method used, the predominate factor is keeping the thing straight with no drift at touchdown, and if things get really squirrely don't be afraid to add throttle and come around for another try. I've seen to many people that seem to forget they have the option of a go-around and one way or the other are determined to plant the thing. Guess they associate a go-around as more of an embarrassment than bending metal.

Hopefully my wildest landing was about 8 yrs. ago in my 180 here at Paullina. There is a lake and areas with trees about 100 ft. off to the side of the runway and also open spaces. The wind was about 30 mph at about 9:30 to 10 o'clock off the nose and very inconsistent. I flew the approach at 75 to 80mph with 20degrees flaps and got down close to the runway doing lots of little ups and downs,finally catching a dip that let me roll the left main on and a split second later the other. On roll out the tail was pitching up and down due to the gusty cond. making it interesting to keep a level attitude. After slowing down I was going to make a left turn whether I wanted to or not so I dropped the tail and got on the right brake saving the day. I don't think I could have stalled it on that day because I might have been stalled on the ground one second and popped 10 ft. in the air the next. Looking back, I should have flown a mile south and landed on the gravel road that runs by the farm and landed into the wind without trees making the wind do funny things.
Marty

VERY interesting thread. I didn't realize I was doing the "MAF wheel landing technique" until I read it. I thought I was just "cheating" at wheel landings! I gravitated into this technique because it felt good, I could land short, and still I got smoother, more accurate touchdowns. (I also found my tailwheel tires last longer on the asphalt than doing 3-pointers!)

From the seat of the pants, (Or maybe I'm just talking out of my a$$? ) I have formulated an opinion regarding the use of the flaps in Cessna taildraggers. It's all or nothing for me. It feels as though the first two notches (10-20 degrees) give mostly extra lift and not much drag. I don't want extra lift in gusty conditions. So if it's gusty, I land Flaps 0. The last two notches are almost all drag, and negate the lift created by the first two notches. I land Flaps 40 all the time unless the winds are too squirrelly. After touchdown I retract the flaps instantly, killing the lift and the airplane glues itself to the ground. In addition to better braking action, this also gives a little more authority back to the tail for that transition from flying machine to ground machine.

Any other thoughts out there on flap use?

M

M, You're probably right but I like 20 the best. Mine stalls at 60mph with flaps retracted and 55 with 20,30,and40. I find 20 brings me down like I like and with 40 I just have to carry a lot more power. I do land with 40 once in awhile but not much. I figure with 20 I'm setup for a go around and able to approach 5 mph slower than with 0. As far as retracting the flaps on rollout in that landing I described before, I don't think I could have maintained directional control and done the flaps. I'm heading down to Florida tomorrow to fly Brian Schanche's (adventureseaplanes.com) 172 on floats. He's at a lake by Haines City. Hope to have some fun.
Marty

It is an interesting tradeoff... I suck the flaps up mainly to get rid of extra lift and glue the airplane down - especially in a crosswind. Getting stopped quickly might be an even wash with either those big barn doors hanging out there vs. better main gear contact with the landing surface. On a dry asphalt runway, I would think giving main wheels/brakes maximum effectiveness would be desirable. But on a loose runway or wet grass, I would probably leave the flaps out if getting stopped was the highest priority. Usually I try not to use brakes at all unless they are absolutely required anyway...

I forgot to mention before when I like flaps 10/20: Flaps 10 gives me the best feel for loitering and being able to maneuver safely. Flaps 20 feels good for the best low-speed pass while still being able to maneuver - plus they're already selected properly for the go-around.

M

Oh yeah... Something I regularly practice is a power-off, 0-flap slip to the landing threshold (beginning at any point after abeam the threshold on downwind), and then pulling in Flaps 40 after kicking the slip out. I think it is a handy manuever for an emergency situation where you have too much energy (potential and/or kinetic) and ONE shot at getting the airplane into a survivable landing site. Kicking the slip in/out can help you manage your energy nicely without extending flaps (which is pretty much a permanent/committed configuration). Then extending flaps into the flare gets you slowed down as much as possible.

The tough part about slips and managing speed is that your ASI is pretty much unuseable. The ASI reads low in a slip all the time because the pitot tube is misaligned with the slipstream. But HOW low changes with the severity of the slip and which direction you are slipping. With the static port into the slipstream, your ASI will read on the "lower side of low" (lower differential pressure between static/pitot inputs). Then the ASI will read on the "higher side of low" when slipping the opposite direction and the static port is blanked by the fuselage. My solution is to listen to the slipstream against the windshield and try to find the right feel in the controls. Even doing this, you will always end up with a little extra speed when you kick the slip out - because you need that speed to keep the airplane flying and avoid a deadly stall/spin incident. That's where pulling in Flaps 40 in the flare really helps.

It would be smart to really know your airplane well before you try this in the pattern. Also practice it up high in the practice area first so you have plenty of room to recover from a mistake.

It's very unlikely that an emergency situation would require this maneuver exactly the way I practice, but my practice does teach me the envelope of what the airplane can do.

Any other "unusual" techniques practiced by anyone?

You're right about the 170 "squirting out" in the flare. You have to ride the slip at a ridiculously low indicated airspeed to avoid it. That's why the wind noise and control feel are so important. Pulling in Flaps 40 as you remove the slip helps avoid the "Squirt" too.

My 170 does the forward slip and/or turning slip VERY well. It drops like an anvil in the coyote/roadrunner cartoon! As you mentioned, it does fall out of the sky Flaps 40 pretty well too.. The only problem is that you're pretty much committed to riding her in Flaps 40 once you select that configuration.

I wish I could have done my tailwheel in a J3! How cool is that? The Super Decathon was a nice ride, but it has so much extra power that getting into/out of trouble wasn't as big a deal. Learning to fly the 170 with the O-300 after that was interesting. I've gone around in a circle on the ground in our 170... luckily no physical damage, just a very bruised ego. Good that it happened when it did (first 10 hours solo) and how it did. It taught me the respect I needed for the airplane without costing me an arm and a leg or getting the FAA involved... Lucky!

M

Uh, that would be a slip, NOT a skid. Careful about your terminology.

Slips close to the ground are okay. Skids at any altitude, other than a demo, are a definite no no.

Understand clearly the difference between a slip and a skid. That is really important, and a common point of confusion with many pilots.

Skids can kill you. Slips may save the day.

MTV

I think I was doing these yesterday, although I definitely didn't plan on it. I had been geeking out, doing wheel landings in X-Plane, and when I took the 170 out yesterday, I ended up performing what I think is a tail-low wheel landing.

Prior to this I had been struggling with stalling the aircraft about 6" off the runway during 3-pointers, and it would just drop in a little harder than I liked. About 30% of my flares have that nice feeling, where the pressure on the yoke and the desired site picture are feel really good, just how you expect. It usually comes from nailing the short final airspeed dead-on, at least for me. Even on those nice ones, only about 10% result in a soft touchdown (greaser!)

Anyway, yesterday I vowed to change it up and do some wheelies, which I have always been squeemish about because of the little extra airspeed you carry to "fly it on." Well, I approached, rolled out level, kind of started to flare like a 3-point, but just gently set the mains on and relaxed the yoke forward a tad. The tail was definitely lower than what I would consider a "normal" wheel landing prior to leveling the pitch attitude right after touching mains down. It felt great though.

I read Bill's article over a year ago now and it is now my landing of choice. Took a while to get used to it, but like it immensely over "standard" wheel landings. In the 170 I just relax back pressure. In the Champ I flew last month it took a definite stick forward input to pin the wheels on.