Emergency Landing: Tailwheel or Tricycle?

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I watched a guy put a Tripacer in a swamp - it was so soft that the airplane ended up on it's back after a very short roll, but both occupants were OK.
Click to expand...

A common tricycle scenario. Once the nosewheel starts to sink in, the resulting deceleration puts a lot of weight on it and it digs in real quick and the airplane flips. Pole-vaulting, sort of. The taildragger's weight is more above than behind its wheels and it doesn't do this quite so radically, though it will still have trouble if the surface is soft enough.

Dan
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I watched a guy put a Tripacer in a swamp - it was so soft that the airplane ended up on it's back after a very short roll, but both occupants were OK.
Click to expand...

A common tricycle scenario. Once the nosewheel starts to sink in, the resulting deceleration puts a lot of weight on it and it digs in real quick and the airplane flips. Pole-vaulting, sort of. The taildragger's weight is more above than behind its wheels and it doesn't do this quite so radically, though it will still have trouble if the surface is soft enough.

Dan
 
In TX I responded to a lot of off airport landings that turned out well. Several times I went out with a loaner engine, did a swap, the engine cames back on the truck and I came back with with the airplane. Cops are even pretty good about coming out and blocking road for you. It all depends on the terrain, and for an all terrain day & night mission, I choose a twin lol.
 
DouglasBader said:
An engine failure does not transfer the airplane to the insurance company, nor does it herald a damaged airplane. One should be fully capable of landing with or without power, and one should be capable of landing the airplane without a prepared, dedicated runway. If not, then one needs to stop flitting around "building time" or taking pictures, and concentrate on basic flying skills which may save one's life.
Click to expand...

I don't want to wad up my bird any more than the next guy - but the fact of the matter is that my skin is worth more than my aluminum. I mentally consign the aircraft to the insurance company, except for the spinner, every time I push the power up on takeoff roll, and take it back when I'm back down to a safe taxi speed. If something goes off track, of course I'm going to try to salvage all the aluminum (after all, I paid for it) - but my skin is higher up on the food chain. Plan A is a smooth touchdown with no damage and no paperwork, several phones calls and some dollars expended. Plan B is best of a bad world, and minor metal work, lots more dollars expended. Plan C is Oh Crap and I'm going to bend any aluminum I need to in order to soften the impact on the spinner, which is what I'm sitting behind, and to hell with the dollars. Anything that hits the spinner hurts me - I protect the spinner, it's mine.

I'm not making light of your point about training yourself on stick-and-rudder skills, that is absolutely critical and all pilots should do it (though few actually do). But when the fertilizer hits the ventilator and the big fan up front gets quiet or smoke starts pouring out of the panel, a fixation on saving the aircraft can kill the pilot. Evaluate your priorities before you fly, and follow them when your flying is coming to a rapid end.
 
Last edited:
A book was written many years ago called "fly the biggest piece back." It's long out of print, but it's the title that's the main thing.

One shouldn't put one's life on the line to save the airplane, but nobody does that. Only an idiot would think that way.

I definitely don't consign the airplane to a material death sentence when pushing the power up.

A power failure isn't a death sentence for the airplane, or for the pilot.

A power failure or a forced landing shouldn't be more than an abnormal procedure. It should be a familiar act. It should be something for which one plans fore the duration of the flight, as well as before and after.

This is rambling to Tom; he believes it's a write-off ("it belongs to the insurance company") at such a time. That kind of mentality is fatalistic. Fly it back. If you have a problem, fly as much of it back as you can.

Most who speculate on these things have never actually experienced an engine failure or forced landing. The specter is far different than the fact; thinking about it conjures up all sorts of images. Planning for it in real time and then executing it is another matter entirely.

Certainly the airplane may be damaged, and certainly the occupants may be hurt or killed. That could happen on the runway, too, and sometimes does.

One should not plan for an emergency with the mentality, however, that one is going to wreck the airplane in the way most conducive to survival. It's very possible to put the airplane on the ground and not only walk away, but use the airplane again. If one sees the evolution as another landing, and flies the airplane accordingly, one has a MUCH better chance of walking away than if one sees it as an impending total write-off.
 
Dan Thomas said:
A common tricycle scenario. Once the nosewheel starts to sink in, the resulting deceleration puts a lot of weight on it and it digs in real quick and the airplane flips. Pole-vaulting, sort of. The taildragger's weight is more above than behind its wheels and it doesn't do this quite so radically, though it will still have trouble if the surface is soft enough.

Dan
Click to expand...

The RV-A series planes have a poor history with poor technique, as bad as the TDs.:dunno: I understand there is a redesigned nose strut, I take most of the fleet has seen retrofit?
 
DouglasBader said:
This is rambling to Tom; he believes it's a write-off ("it belongs to the insurance company") at such a time.
Click to expand...

You're still putting words in another's mouth, Mater Bader. You've missed his point entirely.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If the surface is reasonably hard / flat and you booger up the approach you can resort to a wheel landing and get it stopped before you reach that immovable object if you are flying a taildragger. On a rough / soft surface that might not be as good a choice.

Tailwheel gives you the option to ground loop if you can't get stopped.

Probably most of the time it wouldn't make that much difference. But I'd stick with the tailwheel for convenience.
Click to expand...


That's the long and the short of it really, tailwheel gives you a little more flexibility in compressibility...:rolleyes:
 
You're still putting words in another's mouth, Mater Bader. You've missed his point entirely.
Click to expand...

And your'e contributing a great deal to the discussion, aren't you?

As Tom is unable and unwilling to explain himself, and as you've got a crystal view, perhaps you'll stop flapping your gums and share that point.

Are you able?
 
DouglasBader said:
And your'e contributing a great deal to the discussion, aren't you?

As Tom is unable and unwilling to explain himself, and as you've got a crystal view, perhaps you'll stop flapping your gums and share that point.

Are you able?
Click to expand...

Yes

It's quite simple. Fly the aircraft to a good landing. It doesn't have to be a great landing, that's all he was saying.

Good landing = walk away
Great landing = aircraft reuseable

Are you able to admit that you put words in another's mouth after repeatedly claiming (and taking offense) that others were doing the very same thing to you?

Now continue to be a jerk or not, your call.
 
Last edited:
There's an old, idiotic saying that any landing one can walk away from is a good landing. That wasn't really true back in the pre-barnstorming era, and it's definitely not true today.

It's almost as stupid as someone saying "why jump out of a perfectly good airplane," but not quite.

Surviving is always a desirable outcome in a difficult off field landing with obstacles. Everyone knows this. When the choice is between survival and salvaging the airplane, obviously survival is more desirable, but that's a no-brainer. Clearly one doesn't die and hope to save the airplane.

When one does make a landing which saves the airplane, one saves one's self, as people generally aren't injured or killed from normal, safe landings.

Shoot for a normal, safe landing.

Don't approach the landing with the idea the the aircraft will be property of the insurance company. Don't approach the landing thinking you might die. Don't approach the landing with any other thought than landing the aircraft. Plan your flight accordingly. If your thought one moment is "I'm flying the airplane," then your thought a moment later when the engine fails is "I'm flying the airplane to a landing." That's it.

Don't make it more than it is. Don't worry about whether the airplane will be a write-off for the insurance company. Don't repeat the idiotic fighter pilot mantra about "giving it back to the tax payer." Foolishness.

Fly it until it comes to a rest, period. Whether you do that in an airplane with a nose wheel, or in a conventional gear airplane is inconsequential.
 
Okay, so you'll continue to be a jerk. Fine.

Next time you're 1,000 feet over the pines and the noisemaker quits, is the aircraft going to be destroyed or not? All the fancy flying in the world isn't going to save it. All you can do is try to survive...
 
It's been my experience that one is usually too task saturated to get very philosophical after an engine quits. I mean, sure, it's good to roll these things around, so you'll have a good idea what you're going to do if it ever happens, but, in my limited (engine out) experience, flying the airplane was the most natural instinct. Funny, but I wasn't scared 'til after the event, but I've had situations in an airplane that have literally given me nightmares for a week.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Shove full forward on the yoke, lock the brakes, and push full rudder.

Dan
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what question you were trying to answer. My post was in reply to "Why can't a person ground loop a nose dragger?"

I believe the reason is because a nose dragger has the center of gravity in front of the main landing gear, whereas a taildragger's CG is behind the main gear. Just like driving a car fast in reverse, any lateral drift is greatly exaggerated, and momentum builds quickly.
 
Next time you're 1,000 feet over the pines and the noisemaker quits, is the aircraft going to be destroyed or not?
Click to expand...

Last time fore me was at 150' in a burning canyon in low visibity and stiff winds. The aircraft wasn't destroyed. I flew it for another 39 missions.

What about your last time?

I usually don't get 1000' over the pine trees, this time of year. That would be a high altitude operation.

I'm speaking from my experience. Your'e speaking from your...what was it, again?
 
I'm going back to read the thread later, but after reading only the original post, here's what I think.

First of all I'm very surprised that this question is even asked, but that is a comment based on my own personal flying situation and experience. I live in the boonies with LOTS of fields almost always available to put it down in.

If I ever have to do an emergency landing I will probably be putting it into somebodies meadow, pasture or feed patch. It might be big or it might be small. It might be smooth or maybe not. Most likely I will NOT be trying to put it on a paved surface.

SO... given that I have some choices in a tailwheel plane that I don't have in a nose wheel, such as wheel vs three point and the ability to ground loop it at the last minute, I can't IMAGINE that in such a situation I would be better served in a nosewheel airplane than a tailwheel.

My $0.02,
 
Last edited:
Rigged4Flight said:
I'm not sure what question you were trying to answer. My post was in reply to "Why can't a person ground loop a nose dragger?"

I believe the reason is because a nose dragger has the center of gravity in front of the main landing gear, whereas a taildragger's CG is behind the main gear. Just like driving a car fast in reverse, any lateral drift is greatly exaggerated, and momentum builds quickly.
Click to expand...

You can ground loop a nose dragger by manipulating friction and using inertia, thing is it's a purposeful maneuver, you need to make it happen.
 
Henning said:
You can ground loop a nose dragger by manipulating friction and using inertia, thing is it's a purposeful maneuver, you need to make it happen.
Click to expand...
Ah - thanks for clearing that up!
 
Rigged4Flight said:
Ah - thanks for clearing that up!
Click to expand...

No worries, yeah, Tail dragger you have to actively prevent a ground loop, tricycle you have to active cause one. You can get either turned around if you need to. Tri gear you usually won't break crap and tip over.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
I'm not sure what question you were trying to answer. My post was in reply to "Why can't a person ground loop a nose dragger?"

I believe the reason is because a nose dragger has the center of gravity in front of the main landing gear, whereas a taildragger's CG is behind the main gear. Just like driving a car fast in reverse, any lateral drift is greatly exaggerated, and momentum builds quickly.
Click to expand...

It's called wheelbarrowing, and it breaks a few nosedraggers when the pilot tries to touch down with too much speed. Too much speed means that the nose will be low (low angle of attack) and there will be little weight on the mains. Therefore, the CG is behind the wheel with the most traction: the nosewheel. Any bit of yaw can turn things ugly in a hurry.

Dan
 
Too much speed when landing either a conventional gear airplane or a nose wheel airplane means the airplane isn't ready to land. Unless one pushes the nose firmly on the ground, the nose wheel doesn't tend to bury itself or drive into the ground at all. If anything the airplane tries to get airborne again, and any bounces or rough terrain can lead to that.

Any yaw in either aircraft isn't good; aircraft landing gear is weak (as are the brakes); they're not designed for a side load.
 
I may be way wrong, ( and I'm confident someone will jump in to point out my error, :D ), But if I had to make an emergency landing, (assuming it wasn't into trees), whether in a trike or taildragger, I'd be aiming for a slightly tail low stall at about 4 feet. Seats and gear are designed to absorb vertical G, and that's what I'd aim for.

Before that point I would be flying the plane and managing the energy to place me in the right spot to do that. Never give up.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I may be way wrong, ( and I'm confident someone will jump in to point out my error, :D ), But if I had to make an emergency landing, (assuming it wasn't into trees), whether in a trike or taildragger, I'd be aiming for a slightly tail low stall at about 4 feet. Seats and gear are designed to absorb vertical G, and that's what I'd aim for.

Before that point I would be flying the plane and managing the energy to place me in the right spot to do that. Never give up.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Before that point I would be flying the plane and managing the energy to place me in the right spot to do that. Never give up.
Click to expand...

First picture pretty easy
second picture not so much.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0052.jpg
    DSCN0052.jpg
    204.1 KB · Views: 14
  • P1010019.JPG
    P1010019.JPG
    707.2 KB · Views: 16
Threefingeredjack said:
I'd be aiming for a slightly tail low stall at about 4 feet. Seats and gear are designed to absorb vertical G, and that's what I'd aim for.
Click to expand...

Bad if the surface is soft. More chance of flipping it that way. I'd want to sneak it on, tail low.

But most of us are happy if we can walk away from it. I've had two engine failures (in singles) and both landings came off OK. The fist was within gliding distance of the airport, the other was onto a fallow farm field that was dry. If it had been wet it would have been a different story, with maybe a noseover and all. Both were taildraggers.

I would not want a noseover in my Jodel. It would be very hard to get out. Most low-wing homebuilts are bad that way; the thing will come to rest on the canopy.

Dan
 
Having had an engine failure (ate an exhuast valve) in a Cherokee 180 with no problems getting it down, I am statistically safe.:D

That said, part of my scan is checking for an emergency spot to put it down. I do not want to start that looking while cleaning my shorts after the motor quits.

I also treat every VFR landing like an emergency by seeing if I have to add power after the initial reduction in the pattern if traffic (and ATC) permits. I figure if I have to add power, things would not go well if there was no power to add. If that calls for more practice in spot landings, power off to put it down where it needs to be put down for the best result, it's on the "to do" list for the next flight

Since I have no idea when the problem is going to happen, Taildragger or Trike is interesting but not relevant to me. I like to be like the USCG , Semper Paratus.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Read on....it's not that hard.
Click to expand...

Well, it's debatable if sliding the main gear really is a "ground loop." Sounds more like a Starsky.

Sliding wheels don't care if they slide backwards or forwards, so what is to be gained over just locking the wheels straight ahead, aside from not being able to see where you're going? You'll stop faster with controlled threshold braking anyway. No, you won't be able to add reverse thrust with the propeller (assuming the engine hasn't blown up already) without training for that. All you'll do is mow down edge lighting because you can't see where you're going.

In a tailwheel, a ground loop may prevent a nose-over from excessive braking. If you can nose over a tricycle from locking the brakes, you have a "unique" command of physics. However, while sliding backwards with strong braking, a tailstrike is a possibility.
 
Last edited:
A groundloop occurs when the tailwheel attempts (and succeeds) in passing the main gear.

Some tricycle gear aircraft can be made to ground loop, but it requires stopping or drastically slowing one of the main gear (or striking a wing).

If nose gear embeds, the aircraft usually doesn't go over; it usually tears off the nose gear or bends it back, often as not wrinkling or wrecking the firewall.

I watched a fairly spectacular ground loop in a large conventional gear airplane, recently. I was surprised that, given the speed on landing, the main gear wasn't separated or that the individual didn't catch a wingtip. The airplane was surprisingly fine, the only real visible evidence being heavy markings along the inboard side of the tire where it deformed and dragged on the brake assy. I was surprised that it didn't roll the tire off the wheel or at least break the bead, but it didn't.

I flew it afterward, and it was fine. The pilot, not so much.
 
DouglasBader said:
A groundloop occurs when the tailwheel attempts (and succeeds) in passing the main gear.

Some tricycle gear aircraft can be made to ground loop, but it requires stopping or drastically slowing one of the main gear (or striking a wing).

If nose gear embeds, the aircraft usually doesn't go over; it usually tears off the nose gear or bends it back, often as not wrinkling or wrecking the firewall.

I watched a fairly spectacular ground loop in a large conventional gear airplane, recently. I was surprised that, given the speed on landing, the main gear wasn't separated or that the individual didn't catch a wingtip. The airplane was surprisingly fine, the only real visible evidence being heavy markings along the inboard side of the tire where it deformed and dragged on the brake assy. I was surprised that it didn't roll the tire off the wheel or at least break the bead, but it didn't.

I flew it afterward, and it was fine. The pilot, not so much.
Click to expand...

How about the seat cushion??? Was it wrinkled in the middle?? :dunno:
 
How about the seat cushion???
Click to expand...

This airplane doesn't use them. The pilot was shaken, but not hurt.

The airplane has ample power for it's weight; 8,500 lbs empty, it has 1,500 shp. Get it slow and cob the power, such as a strong bounce on landing and already slow, it turns left with a vengeance, and once it starts, especially under power, it's going to snap around. That can happen in the air or on the ground. Add to that heavy feet and a little brake, it's going for a ride, and it did, as it departed the pavement in a big cloud of dust and dirt.

The pilot learned several valuable lessons which I hope were driven home forcefully enough to stick.
 
DouglasBader said:
This airplane doesn't use them.
Click to expand...

Question for you: were you born without a sense of humor or did you have it removed? If you had it removed, can you have it put back in? If you were born without one, can an artificial one be installed?
 
Most airplanes use them. This one does not. It's a 26G cockpit that is designed, align with the seat, to absorb some fairly terrific impact to protect the pilot. The seat design doesn't include a cushion.

Funny stuff.
 
DouglasBader said:
Most airplanes use them. This one does not. It's a 26G cockpit that is designed, align with the seat, to absorb some fairly terrific impact to protect the pilot. The seat design doesn't include a cushion.

Funny stuff.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a "I was born without a sense of humor" answer. Thank you. No further questions necessary at this point.
 
DouglasBader said:
This airplane doesn't use them. The pilot was shaken, but not hurt.

The airplane has ample power for it's weight; 8,500 lbs empty, it has 1,500 shp. Get it slow and cob the power, such as a strong bounce on landing and already slow, it turns left with a vengeance, and once it starts, especially under power, it's going to snap around. That can happen in the air or on the ground. Add to that heavy feet and a little brake, it's going for a ride, and it did, as it departed the pavement in a big cloud of dust and dirt.

The pilot learned several valuable lessons which I hope were driven home forcefully enough to stick.
Click to expand...
:confused: A decent multi pilot knows to lead with the left throttle by a healthy knob width, I'd expect anyone in a 1500hp twin will know that unless it's all been CR planes. Heck, even 360hp in my Travelair taught that rather quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top