Emergency Landing: Tailwheel or Tricycle?

B

BayAreaFlyer

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
BayAreaFlyer
Just curious what people think. If you had an engine out with no airport in gliding distance and had to make a forced landing, would you prefer a tailwheel gear or a tricycle gear. Assuming tailwheel proficiency and an otherwise somewhat comparable airframe e.g., 8KCAB vs C172. Also assuming the landing surface is probably not ideal (i.e., no open street or perfectly flat grass field).

Would terrain or cityscape make a difference to the answer?
 
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.
 
BayAreaFlyer said:
Just curious what people think. If you had an engine out with no airport in gliding distance and had to make a forced landing, would you prefer a tailwheel gear or a tricycle gear. Assuming tailwheel proficiency and an otherwise somewhat comparable airframe e.g., 8KCAB vs C172. Also assuming the landing surface is probably not ideal (i.e., no open street or perfectly flat grass field).

Would terrain or cityscape make a difference to the answer?
Click to expand...
Who cares ? the aircraft belongs to the insurance company as soon as the engine quit. Your responsibility is to live thru the accident. I'll take the trike, you'll probably never fly it again anyway. Because I've seen too many tailwheel aircraft on their backs.
 
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...


Tailwheel also offers a wheel landing into a nose over at 120 rather than a granite wall at 70. Flipping over itself eats a surprising amount of energy.
 
Tom-D said:
Who cares ? the aircraft belongs to the insurance company as soon as the engine quit. Your responsibility is to live thru the accident.
Click to expand...

That, right there.

I fly the airplane I want to fly, not the airplane I want to crash.
 
airguy said:
That, right there.

I fly the airplane I want to fly, not the airplane I want to crash.
Click to expand...

Ever lived through a catastrophic engine failure resulting in a severe crash in less than ideal terrain?
 
Who cares ? the aircraft belongs to the insurance company as soon as the engine quit.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

Keep flying the airplane. It might end poorly, but it's very possible to end well.

I don't know if you have a responsibility to live through a mishap (there may not be one), but you do have a responsibility to keep working the airplane until it comes to a complete rest.

Ever lived through a catastrophic engine failure resulting in a severe crash in less than ideal terrain?
Click to expand...

Catastrophic engine failure in a burning box canyon in stiff winds, but no severe crash. Successful forced landing on the mountainside.
 
Yep, the airplane is mine to sacrifice as I need until I'm done not dying in it regardless which way it goes lol.
 
I'm not sure if either configuration has a clear-cut advantage, but since I'm either going to fly the plane I want to fly or not fly at all, my first upgrade to the taildragger was a pair of shoulder harnesses for the front-seaters. I've seen those same accident pictures that everybody else has seen, and gotta assume it's going on its back if I screw up.
 
Anyone ever actually seen the gear ripped out of aircraft?

that cockpit gets tore up really fast, and the Cessna gear is attached at 2 places. the hump in the center of t he fuselage, and the outer door post. The outer door post acts as the fulcrum and the inner end of the gear leg tears loose and rotates thru the leg area of the cockpit.

The fortunate gets their legs broke, the unfortunate loose them.
 
Anyone ever actually seen the gear ripped out of aircraft?
Click to expand...

Yep, and it's part of the reason that the Air Tractor was built that way. Other airplanes, yes and no.

Why, so you can continue to argue?
Click to expand...

You're unable to make your point then. Got it.

You gave bad counsel, and then couldn't back it up. I understand completely.
 
Tom-D said:
Anyone ever actually seen the gear ripped out of aircraft?

that cockpit gets tore up really fast, and the Cessna gear is attached at 2 places. the hump in the center of t he fuselage, and the outer door post. The outer door post acts as the fulcrum and the inner end of the gear leg tears loose and rotates thru the leg area of the cockpit.

The fortunate gets their legs broke, the unfortunate loose them.
Click to expand...

Ever seen what happens when a loaded 18-wheeler runs over a small car in a head-on collision? The fortunate ones are the dead ones.

What's your point? Trying to scare us out of flying because our choice of airplane might not measure up to your standard of safety? Let me clue you in here - every airplane is at a lethal speed when the gear leaves the ground. Every one of them. There is no guarantee in life. Figure out what you want to do and go do it. I'm going flying.
 
airguy said:
What's your point? Trying to scare us out of flying because our choice of airplane might not measure up to your standard of safety? Let me clue you in here - every airplane is at a lethal speed when the gear leaves the ground. Every one of them. There is no guarantee in life. Figure out what you want to do and go do it. I'm going flying.
Click to expand...

My safety standards?? where did that come from??
I have a lot more hours in Conventional aircraft than nose wheel. but the point of the thread is which one is better landing in rough terrain.

and the answer is nose wheel, simply because the gear will come off with out destroying the fuselage and the safety cage it provides.

to me that's a pretty big deal.
 
and the answer is nose wheel, simply because the gear will come off with out destroying the fuselage and the safety cage it provides.
Click to expand...

Its a pretty big deal to me too, Tom. The question was asked, answered by a mechanic that has seen it, but since the answer didn't agree with what somebody wanted to hear, they want to argue. Nothing ever changes :(.
 
DouglasBader said:
No, it doesn't.

Keep flying the airplane. It might end poorly, but it's very possible to end well.

I don't know if you have a responsibility to live through a mishap (there may not be one), but you do have a responsibility to keep working the airplane until it comes to a complete rest.



Catastrophic engine failure in a burning box canyon in stiff winds, but no severe crash. Successful forced landing on the mountainside.
Click to expand...
Something like that, I want this guy, in this plane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXnQCE0kG0
 
numl0ck said:
Reminds me of that quote: "There are old pilots, there are bold pilots. There are no old bold pilots." Interesting stuff, but it wouldn't take much to have something go very wrong.
Click to expand...
Very true.

He has another video where he makes a deadstick takeoff from a mountain top and glides to a sandbar two miles away. I believe he got into some trouble with a government agency over that one (something about misuse of public lands or something). Here's the deadstick takeoff video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeQP-H_31JQ

That video went viral, and he built on the publicity to market a DVD of his flights. Like you said, it's definitely not something I would ever play around with. But since he's already doing it, I'm definitely watching. :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Inverted said:
And is surprisingly very survivable.
Click to expand...
Like so many things, that depends on the airplane. Highly experienced pilots have been killed when they flipped a tailwheel airplane on it's back (low wing airplanes with limited cockpit integrity protection) but a noseover in a C170 with shoulder harnesses isn't likely to produce injuries beyond belt bruises.

As to the question in the OP, I'd say this almost entirely depends on what you're most comfortable flying and landing. All else being equal, a tailwheel probably offers better survivability for an off airport, rough field but a higher percentage of TW airplanes have significantly limited forward vision which can complicate a landing in unfamiliar territory. The posted question mentioned landing at an airport, in which case that should be less of a factor.
 
gismo said:
Like so many things, that depends on the airplane. Highly experienced pilots have been killed when they flipped a tailwheel airplane on it's back (low wing airplanes with limited cockpit integrity protection) but a noseover in a C170 with shoulder harnesses isn't likely to produce injuries beyond belt bruises.

As to the question in the OP, I'd say this almost entirely depends on what you're most comfortable flying and landing. All else being equal, a tailwheel probably offers better survivability for an off airport, rough field but a higher percentage of TW airplanes have significantly limited forward vision which can complicate a landing in unfamiliar territory. The posted question mentioned landing at an airport, in which case that should be less of a factor.
Click to expand...

On several occasions I have helped recover aircraft that have landed off airport, only one turned out well. Yet there weren't any loss of life in any that I helped recover.
When we land almost any aircraft off airport the emergency creates stresses that most pilots never have encountered before. this causes them to make mistakes.

Flipping a Cessna over on its back at low speeds resulting from a ground loop or similar circumstances will probably not kill you, but to land one in rough terrain, You can get seriously hurt.

As I have said before you the pilot have a responsibility to you and your Pax to survive the accident, not to the aircraft, its going to the junk yard anyway.

On the other hand, the less damage you do the aircraft the more survivable the accident, so choose the spot carefully and do the best you can.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
The second link I posted might be more appropriate to this thread. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

What's the difference between that vid, and a regular ol pilot trying to make an off airport emergency landing?

A. this guy practices this stuff?
B. This aircraft was made to do this?
C. This guy can light her up again and save the day?
D. all the above?
 
Tom-D said:
What's the difference between that vid, and a regular ol pilot trying to make an off airport emergency landing?

A. this guy practices this stuff?
B. This aircraft was made to do this?
C. This guy can light her up again and save the day?
D. all the above?
Click to expand...
Yes.

A and B are why I said I would pick him and his plane. So... :dunno:
 
The point was already made you simply didn't get it.
Click to expand...

I got it. You gave bad counsel. You advised the reader to expect that the aircraft won't' be salvageable, that there won't' be a good outcome to a forced landing.

The problem today is that students seldom have ever seen an off-field landing, let alone having been given proper expectations of the eventuality or reality of such an event. It should be ingrained early in training, and oft reiterated that it's never a matter of if one will have a power loss, but when.

An engine-out shouldn't become a death-defying, gonna-trash-the-airframe, can't-believe-anybody-could-survive-it event.

It should be one more training evolution. One should keep a constant eye toward forced landing sites such that when the engine quits or develops a partial power state, one can simply say "I'm landing there, the spot I've already considered, and chosen."

There are no guarantees. To start the event with the notion that the aircraft won't' be salvageable and that one is giving it back to the insurance agency smacks of fatalism. I'm concerned about getting down safely and getting stopped, but I want to be able to re-use the airplane when I'm done. It's not a once-in-a-lifetime event. It's just one more. Get down. Get stopped.

There are occasions when one has placed one's self into a position that no wide open highway or field is available; certainly we are all there at some point in our flights, though when flying single engine airplanes one should do one's best to minimize that exposure. On such occasions, one may need to put the fuselage between two tree trunks to let the wings take the impact, rather than the fuselage; there are times when one uses the airplane sacrificially to enhance survivability.

Those occasions are the exception, rather than the rule.

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.
 
DouglasBader said:
I got it. You gave bad counsel. You advised the reader to expect that the aircraft won't' be salvageable, that there won't' be a good outcome to a forced landing.
Click to expand...

Just who is putting words in whose mouth? Be honest here now Master Bader.
 
DouglasBader said:
An engine-out shouldn't become a death-defying, gonna-trash-the-airframe, can't-believe-anybody-could-survive-it event.
Click to expand...

The old man had two of his airplanes go down - a Navion with a broken crankshaft (flown by a partner) and a Beech Sport that my kid sister ran out of gas on her solo cross country ("I asked them to fill it").

Both were flown out.

The Navion was towed to a sod farm and got an field overhaul and the old man flew the Beech out of the field my sister put it in after adding a few cans of gas.

Some years later the Beech (then owned by someone else) was totaled when it was put down on the rail road tracks near VLL (NTSB attributed to auto gas). No injuries.

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.
 
DouglasBader said:
I got it. You gave bad counsel. You advised the reader to expect that the aircraft won't' be salvageable, that there won't' be a good outcome to a forced landing.

The problem today is that students seldom have ever seen an off-field landing, let alone having been given proper expectations of the eventuality or reality of such an event. It should be ingrained early in training, and oft reiterated that it's never a matter of if one will have a power loss, but when.

An engine-out shouldn't become a death-defying, gonna-trash-the-airframe, can't-believe-anybody-could-survive-it event.

It should be one more training evolution. One should keep a constant eye toward forced landing sites such that when the engine quits or develops a partial power state, one can simply say "I'm landing there, the spot I've already considered, and chosen."

There are no guarantees. To start the event with the notion that the aircraft won't' be salvageable and that one is giving it back to the insurance agency smacks of fatalism. I'm concerned about getting down safely and getting stopped, but I want to be able to re-use the airplane when I'm done. It's not a once-in-a-lifetime event. It's just one more. Get down. Get stopped.

There are occasions when one has placed one's self into a position that no wide open highway or field is available; certainly we are all there at some point in our flights, though when flying single engine airplanes one should do one's best to minimize that exposure. On such occasions, one may need to put the fuselage between two tree trunks to let the wings take the impact, rather than the fuselage; there are times when one uses the airplane sacrificially to enhance survivability.

Those occasions are the exception, rather than the rule.

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...

More rambling
 
Maybe more important than landing gear configuration is how slowly the airplane lands - and hence how much runway required. A super cub lands a little faster than a walk. Very survivable. Lanceair 4 not so much. Rougher terrain, the tailwheel has the edge, besides having a (probably) better pilot.
 
If I have to make an off-airport landing due to an in-flight emergency, I really don't care whether it's a conventional or tricycle gear. All I care about is being under control and at the minimum energy state I can manage while being under control. The airplane belongs to the insurance company, I don't give a damn if it survives or not, as long as the folks on board walk away with minimal injury. I don't think the gear configuration is going to make much of a difference to the potential for injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top