I only do wheel landing in all conditions every time, my wheel landing is usually on the tail low side until I get on the brakes. I can fly slower tail low but still see where I am going and what I might be about to hit. Take off it all depends how I am loaded, gross weight you don't have much choice then to wait until the tail is ready to fly. If I am light I pick up the tail with power 1 notch of flaps and go when she is just about ready to fly full flap then back to 2 as soon as I am climbing which is as soon as I am off the ground if I am light. Off airport in rough conditions requires in my opinion being light, at least the first trip in.... Flying an airplane to the maximum requires time in the seat, we can all talk about what works for us but I think for everyone the best thing you can do is go out and practice the different techniques and see what actually gets the best results.

A very well known person but I won't mention his name. He told me that I could not land as short using a wheel landing. I am talking crazy off airport landings not normal stuff that any tail wheel pilot can do, I took this person flying and by the end of riding around in my airplane he had changed his mind, a belief he had had for more then 40 years. The first time you try doing a 3 point off airport where you need 31" bushwheels and they seem a little small for what you are landing on you will understand that 3 points do not work for rough off airport conditions. Once you master a wheel landing you will realize how much more control you have over your aircraft, there is a difference between being able to do a wheel landing and have it be as natural a driving your car to the store. Part of the muscle memory that takes no effort to pull off.

Greg

Mauleguy wrote:I only do wheel landing in all conditions every time, my wheel landing is usually on the tail low side until I get on the brakes. I can fly slower tail low but still see where I am going and what I might be about to hit. Take off it all depends how I am loaded, gross weight you don't have much choice then to wait until the tail is ready to fly. If I am light I pick up the tail with power 1 notch of flaps and go when she is just about ready to fly full flap then back to 2 as soon as I am climbing which is as soon as I am off the ground if I am light. Off airport in rough conditions requires in my opinion being light, at least the first trip in.... Flying an airplane to the maximum requires time in the seat, we can all talk about what works for us but I think for everyone the best thing you can do is go out and practice the different techniques and see what actually gets the best results.

A very well known person but I won't mention his name. He told me that I could not land as short using a wheel landing. I am talking crazy off airport landings not normal stuff that any tail wheel pilot can do, I took this person flying and by the end of riding around in my airplane he had changed his mind, a belief he had had for more then 40 years. The first time you try doing a 3 point off airport where you need 31" bushwheels and they seem a little small for what you are landing on you will understand that 3 points do not work for rough off airport conditions. Once you master a wheel landing you will realize how much more control you have over your aircraft, there is a difference between being able to do a wheel landing and have it be as natural a driving your car to the store. Part of the muscle memory that takes no effort to pull off.

Greg

OK, Now come on Some 1 try and convince Greg he should 3 point and then go out and show him why!!

Greg, X2

GT

Greg,

Okay, just bought your full DVD set. If I was landing in the stuff you are I'd never put the tail wheel down, in fact I'd carry some guy and make jump out and hold it up.

In all seriousness I applied a couple of your tips to my short field take offs and can now get my 185, with just me and half fuel, up in about 300 feet, and that is still rolling the power on as the plane rolls, so no doubt can get it even shorter if I go full power before rolling, and as I get more precise with the techniques.

Highly recommend Volume 1 and 2, and Study in STOL for excellent tips on short field work, and of course they are a blast to watch.

Never really appreciated all that white stuff in vol 3 & 4, too damn cold! Didn't mind the dusting of it in vol 5, I love the desert.

My shortest landings come "riding the elevator down" although I haven't yet figured out the best transition to the ground, just started with this.

Barnstormer,
Greg is right about the greater control and efficiency of having the airplane level on the mains as much as possible in both takeoff and landing. That is one of the reasons nose gears came about. The airplane accelerates much quicker with the tail forced up. Yes we lose the directional stability of the tail being down, but we need the kinetic energy of pressure airspeed to make the wing work. Also, with full power, directional stability is easy to control with dynamic, proactive rudder movement. Of course, the airplane, or helicopter, accelerates much more quickly with all wheels and all skids off the surface. Low ground effect energy is the bust buy (it is free) in aviation.

Wheel landing gives more crosswind control and good vision as well. We just have to remember the different objectives in landing verses takeoff. During takeoff, we both desire zoom reserve (kinetic energy of pressure airspeed) in the form of airspeed and zoom reserve (potential gravity thrust of altitude) in the form of altitude. During landing, we desire to get rid of all zoom reserve in the form of airspeed and all zoom reserve in the form of altitude by the time we reach the numbers. The round out, flair, and hold off just does not work for short fields. Other than to hover over rough stuff on short final, we do not desire ground effect on landing. That means we have to almost stall the airplane before we level it. That means we have a hard time achieving the greater visibility and control of the wheel landing using the power off approach. We need to use power/pitch to either hover taxi up to the desired landing point in ground effect or to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk rate of closure over the trees to the desired touchdown point. If in the hover taxi, we level and close the throttle to touch down on the mains. If in a steep apparent rate of closure approach over the trees, we level and close the throttle as we touch down on the mains. Only in a tailwind does the extra engine thrust to keep the airplane flying usually result in a behind the power curve condition such that the nose will be so high that the tail wheel touches down first. If the tail touches first, we are slow enough to keep it down. If the tail does not touch first, we are fast enough that we will bounce unless we level the airplane just before or at touchdown.

There you have it folks, AOPA says it's a myth.

https://youtu.be/nb6TkvJ4XBE?t=428
(starts at 7:10)

mountainmatt wrote:There you have it folks, AOPA says it's a myth.

https://youtu.be/nb6TkvJ4XBE?t=428
(starts at 7:10)

Well, there you have it.

Perhaps he should have included another technique in his claimed shortest takeoff (3 point, flaps 20): Starting the 3 point roll with no flaps, leaving it in the 3 point attitude, then putting 20 degrees of flap in just at the minimum (20 degree flap) liftoff speed. I believe THAT is the actual "popping" technique that is used by so many people in STOL operations. Having the flaps extended at any point prior to the liftoff is creating a little bit of drag with no benefit. Flame away, but physics don't lie.

I guess all the guys at Valdez don't know shit!

None of AOPA's short field takeoff solutions used low ground effect. None tried to get the airplane flying in low ground effect (possible much sooner than any of their examples) as soon as it would fly in low ground effect. All of their examples tried to get out of low ground effect as soon as possible.

If we have a tremendous power to weight ratio, the Saturn rocket that sent the guys to the moon comes to mind, good technique doesn't amount to much. Wait! Belay that if the fire goes out, if overloaded, and if at high density altitude. Good technique is also a thing of art. It is part of what makes flying more fun than driving.

Computers will eventually drive our cars as well as our airplanes. Insurance companies will punish those who try to drive or fly by the seat of their pants. Enjoy the use of natural as well as engine energy while it is still possible. Given the many ways nature can sneak up on us, it is just inefficient not to make use of positive natural energy like low ground effect.

Amen...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I sure am glad 1 data point on a well groomed field by a rookie with 6.00's can finally close the case. Everyone go home, nothing to see here. Hopefully some of the STOL contests in the near future will heed their advice. Bunch of silly nannies out there getting the tail up and trying to complicate things by pulling flaps after power is in. I can't believe guys have been doing it wrong for so many years. Geez

Really though, they should probably stick to medical reform...

All he's proven is that HIS technique didn't help him.
He then goes on to draw some unrelated conclusions and make a few sweeping statements.

No mention of aircraft type either.

Having done the same test in my plane, under closely measured conditions, raising the tail under full power BEFORE you release the brakes is shorter than his technique. I have the results on Youtube too.

One thing to consider on blowing the tail up with brakes locked is the runway. Tar and grass is fine but it you have any kind of small rocks or gravel below the prop it is very easy to pick it up and have a nasty prop ding. On loose stuff I try to roll the power on easy and let the plane get moving before full power and even think of picking up the tail. This does cost me a few feet on the takeoff but saves my prop. For people trying to do short work in soft stuff a big tailwheel helps a lot.
Blowing the tail up with brakes locked may get you off quicker (depending on the surface) if you have the skills to make it work, but the timing has to be right and it is a lot harder than it looks. Each takeoff has to be evaluated on what you have to work with. No right or wrong just what will work with YOUR skills, the plane, and the situation. It is best to have a lot of tricks in the bag.
As far as aircraft control with the tail up or down. Go out and taxi down a 3000ft runway at 40 mph with the tail down. Than go do it with the tail up and see which on you like better. If the crosswind is bad enough the only way you will go straight is with brakes, tail up or down. This is not to say I would ever take the steering chains off a tailwheel. I think the non steering tailwheel fad is a poor choice on or off runway.
DENNY

DENNY wrote:One thing to consider on blowing the tail up with brakes locked is the runway. Tar and grass is fine but it you have any kind of small rocks or gravel below the prop it is very easy to pick it up and have a nasty prop ding. On loose stuff I try to roll the power on easy and let the plane get moving before full power and even think of picking up the tail. This does cost me a few feet on the takeoff but saves my prop. For people trying to do short work in soft stuff a big tailwheel helps a lot.
Blowing the tail up with brakes locked may get you off quicker (depending on the surface) if you have the skills to make it work, but the timing has to be right and it is a lot harder than it looks. Each takeoff has to be evaluated on what you have to work with. No right or wrong just what will work with YOUR skills, the plane, and the situation. It is best to have a lot of tricks in the bag.

I agree. I would never use that brakes-locked approach on a riverbed or beach, except maybe in an emergency - which has happened to me before. I got caught in a tight spot by an incoming tide, we were slow getting out of the water on a diving trip off the beach. I lost some paint that day.

On grass or seal, it does work well and is quite safe for the prop. Larger tires help too, as you need fractionally less force to rotate onto the mains (well, with the BH geometry anyway), and more importantly you have more prop clearance. I think prop clearance considerably reduces the propensity for sucking stones off the ground.

I think the technique is very hard in some aircraft, and easy in others. In the Bearhawk, its child's play provided you are unloaded.

Watch old newsreels of WWII Bombers taking off always max loaded. Watch crop dusters at low DA take off max loaded in the heat of the day. Watch crop dusters taking off from Leach Field or Alamosa max loaded. None of them climb out at Vx in the kind of high pitch attitude that scares old contact to death.

Airliners operate in a completely different environment. They always have lots of power for their weight. They don't land at Alamosa in the heat of the day. You guys with your light airplanes with big engines have lots of power to weight, but you guys use good technique for the possibility of being to heavy at too high DA. Those things happen to careful guys from time to time. Once given up, low ground effect no longer helps.

Crzyivan13 wrote:

mountainmatt wrote:There you have it folks, AOPA says it's a myth.

https://youtu.be/nb6TkvJ4XBE?t=428
(starts at 7:10)

Well, there you have it.

We should get him to do a video using a nose dragger. Since hes proven all of us tail wheel guys wrong, I'm sure he has some good advice for you guys to!!

mountainmatt wrote:There you have it folks, AOPA says it's a myth.

https://youtu.be/nb6TkvJ4XBE?t=428
(starts at 7:10)

Well that was just a big old load of crap.

Ha Ha! Ya think! Tell those hosers that on the red forums. [emoji12]

Gump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am unconvinced by the video. Maybe someone could remake the video it with a slighty more accurate approach?

Personally I feel that no flaps, tail up, yank on the Johnson bar, release to 10degrees and accelerate in ground effect gets me off the ground the fastest/shortest but I would be the first to admit that it is just that - a feeling. Besides it just feels like fun:)

Ive found almost the opposite, but none are a drastic change on my similar year 185. 20 degrees, tail low, then pull 30 is shortest. Of course that's my airplane in my configuration. 3 pointing it off with 20 is not bad, but definitely not shortest. This was pretty close to a textbook 3 point with 20 leaving Idaho last June. Seemed like it took for ever.

[/youtube]