I learned to wheel land in a J-3 using the following procedure which worked real well for me:

-Approach about the same speed
-Use power to arrest the decent
-Kiss it on with a tiny bit of backpressure
-Forward pressure once the wheels are planted
-Chop the power once you have directional control (J-3 can be squirmy on pavement)
-When you feel the tail want to drop, plant the little wheel with back stick

The key to this method seems to be using power to control the decent rate, which I agree with. When I was getting checked out in the Citabria to rent recently, the instructor wanted me to do a wheel landing with no power in, but to come in at about 80 mph instead of the 65mph I did for three pointers. He let me do my method, and I came in at about 75 (still too fast in my mind), and I nailed it.

So now time for my question: Does anyone out there use no power during a wheel landing and does anyone go that much faster during a wheel landing?

Thanks!
Jesse

Unless he had some other learning objective in mind it sounds like he's preaching pretty sloppy technique. Seems to be a common misunderstanding that wheel landings are flown faster than full stall. That's may be true just prior to touchdown but the approach speeds should be more or less the same.

If you think about it, he's replacing the power you're carrying with a higher energy state in the form of airspeed. He's then using that excess energy to arrest the rate of descent prior to putting the wheels down. Nothing really wrong with it if you've got all the runway in the world available and if you don't let it turn into touching down too fast. The tendency to touch down too fast in wheel landings stems from the greater comfort factor that comes with the aerodynamic control that airspeed affords. At some point though you've got to slow it down and deal with the danger zone that occurs as you lose rudder authority and transition to the tailwheel for directional control.

When I did my tailwheel transition, once I had gotten the basics down my instructor had me fly approaches all the way to short final before he told me if he wanted a 3-pter or wheelie. Everything else being equal nothing was different between the two until I was inside about 6 feet from the ground.

You're on the right track - the technique you're using will result in far more precise touchdown points than carrying too much energy into the flare.

Vick,

I agree with you completely. Just thought I might be missing something. I'm a strong believer in coming in the the slowest (safe) airspeed to minimize energy to lose. I'm renting this plane out of a 6k' runway, so he does have plenty of room to bleed speed. Guess that is not forcing good energy management.

I like the idea of calling out wheel or 3-point right around flare for practice. I do tend to do a flatter approach for wheel landings to get myself stabilized with a slow decent rate before landing, as I'm not as experienced as a lot of you guys are. My 3 pointers tend to come in a bit steeper, but both within the same 5mph of a short final approach window I set to minimize my roll.

Got to love these planes with the little wheel at the back!

PilotRPI wrote:So now time for my question: Does anyone out there use no power during a wheel landing and does anyone go that much faster during a wheel landing?

I don't use power off approaches for anything. And there is absolutely no reason in the world to "go faster" for a wheel landing as opposed to a three pointer.

Gump

I mostly agree with Gump.

One minor exception: When the noismaker up front goes totally silent, it helps to KNOW HOW to make a power off landing. That suggests you may want to practice them periodically.

And, no, wheel landings need not be any faster than three points.

Finally, 65 mph over the threshold (and that's the only place that speed matters) is REALLY fast for a Citabria, in my opinion. That's going to result in a significant float, especially with ANY power on.

MTV

There are several good reasons to use a wheel landing vs. a three-pointer: to see obstacles better over the nose; to keep the tailwheel up as long as possible to avoid damage from rocks or ruts; for a faster final approach airspeed to overcome the effects of a strong crosswind without floating.

Banking into the wind and using opposite rudder prevents sideways drift only if there is enough forward airspeed. Increasing airspeed to counteract sideways drift will cause floating in a three-pointer because of the higher angle of attack and increased lift. The downside of more forward airspeed is a longer landing. Selecting the right airspeed is a compromise in a crosswind.

Using a wheel landing for either of the first two reasons does not require more airspeed than a three-pointer, but the last reason does.

MTV,

Asking because I'm just learning with the Citabria, what do you typically use for a short short final speed? 65 seemed to work OK, but then again we were on a 6000' runway. He asked me to do a short field, and for that I used 60, and that seemd to work great, but I wasn't holding too much power in either. I'm guessing that if you are coming in slow for a short field, you carry a bunch of power as it is probably behind the power curve?

Also, this one does not have flaps.

Thanks! I love flying this thing.

andy wrote:for a faster final approach airspeed to overcome the effects of a strong crosswind without floating.

Banking into the wind and using opposite rudder prevents sideways drift only if there is enough forward airspeed. Increasing airspeed to counteract sideways drift will cause floating in a three-pointer because of the higher angle of attack and increased lift. The downside of more forward airspeed is a longer landing. Selecting the right airspeed is a compromise in a crosswind.

Using a wheel landing for either of the first two reasons does not require more airspeed than a three-pointer, but the last reason does.

Really????????....

Spent a lot of years and hours in C180/185's fighting big crosswinds, and I don't recall ever changing speeds for a three point vs wheel landing. Same works for both.

Gump

Well....

...there is a chance that I am a lousy pilot, don't know how to fly my Maule, something aerodynamically is wrong with my airplane: or all three. But I find it impossible to make wheel landings in my M-5 without carrying a higher approach speed than I do with a typical approach culminating in a three point landing.

I typically approach at 60 mph indicated, carrying power for a three point landing. If I want to make a spot landing for the shortest rollout I will approach at 55 mph and carry a bit of power right to the touchdown. Such approach speed requires a pitch attitude which results in a very tail low attitude in which, if I am not careful, the tailwheel will touch before the main gear. Something that has occurred on a few occassions. Now when approaching at 55/60 mph for an intended three point landing...I have "accidently" had the mains touch first with the tailwheel an inch or two off of the runway and 2 or 3 seconds before the tailwheel touched down. Such a landing is always a surprise, unintended, very sweet and....I suppose it could be considered a wheel landing. But what is the point of a wheel landing that has the mains on a second or two before the tailwheel anyhow?

If I want to make a wheel landing I must fly faster....at least 70 mph indicated. Otherwise the tail low attitude is as indicated above and I end up with a three pointer any how.

Now if I want to make a three pointer with an approach speed of 70 ish indicated I can do that. Having stated that I can make a wheel landing if I approach at 70 ish....then one could argue that I do not have to fly any faster for a wheel landing than a three point landing. However in my airplane if I carry the higher airspeed and make a three point I have to float down the runway and bleed of the airspeed. Otherwise a higher speed, three point touchdown, results in an airplane that doesn't want to quit flying and so we skip and bounce along a bit until the excess lift is killed off.

Now Mr. Maule told me that there NEVER is a reason to make a wheel landing in a Maule. One would assume that he is talking about a hard surface runway or at least a smooth runway surface. Well...he may be right under those conditions and as long as one operates within the demonstrated cross wind component limits. But my experience has demonstrated over and over that if the cross wind component is say 20 or 25 kts. and/or there are very strong gusty winds....my airplane better be landed on the mains first and it better be flown at speed higher than one would normally use for a three point landing. I've done it both ways many times. The only time I darn near ground looped or ran off the runway was when I made a three point landing with a 20 kt. cross wind component and gusts. On that very occassion I was intentionaly practicing landing under those conditions on a paved runway. I made 10 or 12 such landings that day. Every wheel landing was a handful but fully controllable. After two three point landings under those conditions.... which resulted in a couple of wild roll outs.....I decided that Mr. Maule was full of baloney. You would be correct to say that the airplane was being operated beyond it's intended limits. I would plead guilty but add that most of us have found ourselves in such situations unintentionally. In anticipation of such I have always wanted to know the limits of my capability and that of my airplane....just in case.

I flew various models of the Twin Beech on mail runs for hundreds of hours. 100% of the Twin Beech pilots that I ever met made wheel landings. One had to carry extra speed . Otherwise the pitch attitude would result in tail low attitude and a three point landing. Not a good idea in that airplane. Point being....like in my Maule....one had to carry higher airspeed in the Beech in order to make a wheel landing and not an unintended and undesirable three point landing.

If one reads the history of Continental Airlines going back to late 30s and early 40s one will find that there was a raging battle, among their pilots, over how to land the DC-3. The Chicago based pilots always made wheel landings. The Houston based pilots all made three point landings. The arguments continued until the Houston based pilots started flying routes into the Windy City of Chicago. Not long after that....the mandatory standard became...wheel landings, carrying a bit more speed. Not saying it cannot be done either way. Just saying history indicates one was safer than the other....much like my experience in the Twin Beech.

And....I double dog dare you to make three point landings in a Pitts S-1. Approach speeds are high and three point attempts result in many skips and bounces off of the runway. I only met one pilot who could do it successfully. He was an airshow guy who said that every Pitts pilot he had ever met, including yours truely, found it impossible. Different airplanes. Different results.

I will continue to fly the Maule under various conditions as I have for the past 9 years. But I will also defer to the pros here and accept any criticism or lessons in aerodynamics offered.

Bob

I do power-off wheel landing and three point very often while towing in the super-cub and pawnee at about the same speed, however not very often in my own airplane but do practice "engine-out" no power landings both three-point and wheel. With that said my wheel landing and three point speeds are about the same speed power-on in my own plane... I will admit it takes awhile to master (at least for my slow learning curve!) For me it always seemed to be about setup, descent rate and timing....if I effed any of that up I would be three pointing it.

I was taught the same as you though-power to catch the descent rate-then once I got that feel they transitioned me to power off with a bit higher airspeed, and from there its simply practice and perfection

I agree with you Bob.

My shortest landings are tailwheel low (almost 3 point) wheel landings. Mains touch, dump the flaps, (EZ flap is great) romp on the brakes, yoke all the way back, and stay on the brakes to the point if you push any harder you will nose over.

To make a beautiful smooth wheel landing I fly a speed that will keep the plane level and ease it down ever so slowly buy reducing power. The Maules like to be landed with a little power.

Good day

As noted several dozen times on similar threads there is a HUGE difference between a "crosswind" and a "GUSTY crosswind".

Bob,

My experience in Maules is far less than you, but I've been told by many well experienced Maule drivers to NEVER, EVER three point a Maule. Wheel landings have always worked for me in the M-6 and M-7s.

On the other hand, I totally disagree that one NECESSARILY must fly substantially faster for a wheel landing than for a three point. Remember, a crosswind suggests NO additional speed on final. Only a GUSTY crosswind suggests one should carry some extra speed. And, what is that speed? 1/2 the gust factor, so if you have a 15 knot, gusting to 20 knot wind, you should add 2 1/2 knots to your approach speed. I would suggest that most folks in that much rock and roll are going to have trouble being that precise in their airspeed control. But, the point is, you should NOT be adding buckets of excess speed, because you're just going to have to bleed all that speed off once you're in contact with the runway. And, THAT is the only place you are going to hurt the airplane, so slower is better.

Wheel landings can be flown at virtually the same approach as a three point, but at the touch, the tailwheel should be just an inch or two off the runway, THEN the stick comes forward, and the tail comes up.

On a runway, who cares, really? Off airport, it's all about tailwheel protection (break one in some shithole sometime, and tell me you want to do that again) and seeing over the nose to avoid the big uglies.

On a runway, I use whatever seems to work for ME in THAT airplane. To me, there are no hard and fast rules that apply to all aircraft in this regard. Every airplane is a little different, and most pilots have different skill sets as well.

Comparing DC-3 and Beech 18s to Maules/Cessnas/Cubs is a LITTLE bit of a red herring as well, since neither of those airplanes ( the Doug and Beech) have steerable tailwheels, while the others noted do. WHat applies to an airplane with NO tailwheel steering isn't necessarily applicable to one with a steerable tailwheel.

MTV

delete. System error

All things being equal you will touch down a LITTLE faster on a wheel landing. If you 3 point it, you should touch down level on 3 wheels. On a wheel landing, you want the tail a little off the ground, then forward control as soon as the mains touch, to bring the plane level. So maybe 3-5 mph??

I think the Valdez guys might not agree with that...

Gump

Oh joy, another endless thread on landings.

May as well add this statement too; It doesn't matter how short you can land, if you can't hit your spot, it doesn't count for much in the real world.

mountainmatt wrote:Oh joy, another endless thread on landings.

May as well add this statement too; It doesn't matter how short you can land, if you can't hit your spot, it doesn't count for much in the real world.

Matt,

That is what my wife says.....

Bob

z3skybolt wrote:

mountainmatt wrote:Oh joy, another endless thread on landings.

May as well add this statement too; It doesn't matter how short you can land, if you can't hit your spot, it doesn't count for much in the real world.

Matt,

That is what my wife says.....

Bob

Where do you think I got it?!?!

Woof Woof.
I guess I am that dog who regularly three pointed his Pitts S1.
Fellow who trained me showed me all kinds of landing techniques to land that little fella, in all sorts of strips other certified Pitts "experts" said were impossible. Including a nice little 1000ft strip in Duvall WA also.(MAJERLE)
All I'm saying is that there are a number of arrows a person can have in the quiver to use as situation dictates. I'm a total hack, low total time pilot the instructors I've flown with were able to train. Anything is possible .
Wheelie, three point, the M5 will do whatever you tell it. Not quite as easily as the old 108-3, but willing none-the-less.
I just try not to use always and never, eh?

8 years in my M5-180 and I agree it will do whatever you tell it to do. I wheel it with power shallow or without power steep approaches. I "check" back stick over the fence to get rid of the speed of i have extra. Three point it in no wind or some wind but never when it's blowing cross. One notch of flaps and fly it on fast. Differential brakes and get it over with. I just started on a C185 and it seems to do the same. My strongest crosswind was 28 knots at 90 degrees but no trees, so no rotors. I think that I do that modified wheel landing discussed above. When I need to get in short (around 250') I always wheel it in, full back stick and maintain attitude with the brakes. Seems to work every time.

I think it helps to taxi around with power flying the tail to get some of these maneuvers down.

Pete