Landing tail low?

alaskan9974

alaskan9974

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
204
Location
Alaska
Display Name
Display name:
alaskan9974
Landing tail low vs tail first? I get mixed messages, first cfi I flew with said no to both. Second one I flew with more said as long as I don’t hit the tail too hard it’ll be ok.
 
Are we talking Taildraggers? If you are trying to do three point landings, touching down SLIGHTLY tail first will reduce the chance of a bounce because the angle of attack will DECREASE when the mains touch down. Tail low the opposite occurs. If your descent rate isn’t just right when the mains touch, the tail will come down increasing the angle of attack and you are flying again.
 
My best landings in my Hatz are when I touch tailwheel first.
 
Really getting in the weeds on this, and as mentioned, it depends...

how is the plane designed? Old things like Waco’s frequently sit at a TRUE stalled angle of attack. Tail first is difficult and precariously close to deep stall, so somewhat dicey. A glastar sits kinda flat. Even tail first and the resulting decrease in angle of attack can be thwarted by ripping the stick back at touchdown like I do in my Piet, and off you go bouncing down the runway... or so I’m told...

Is it gusty, or calm? What’s your experience level and proficiency in that plane?

quite generally, and on grass in nice conditions, I just kinda like a tailwheel touching first.

Tools
 
I avoided tail-first, simply because I’ve had too many tailwheel break over the years. My preference is a tail-low wheel landing. Fairly low energy, still controllable. Some airplanes do better with some techniques than others.

I do know pilots/instructors who don’t like tail-low landings for whatever reason, but like I told my brother, if you ask five taildragger pilots you’ll get six different answers. I’m the only one who’s right. ;)
 
In many hours of teaching tailwheel transition courses in Citabrias I found that, conditions permitting, the very best landings - or at least the least exciting - had the tailwheel rolling on slightly first, with the mains dropping on a second or so later. I tried to instill in my students having this as the goal, feeling for the runway with the tailwheel, and still have this mental image on the now rare occasion I get to fly a tailwheel.

Personally, I found with all the gear touching together, the plane felt more “skittery” for a few seconds as the wings still had some lift to dissipate, and those few seconds of nervousness were where students could get behind the plane and begin to swerve. Tailwheel first felt more like the airplane was done flying, and hence easier.
 
FastEddieB said:
I tried to instill in my students having this as the goal, feeling for the runway with the tailwheel, and still have this mental image on the now rare occasion I get to fly a tailwheel.
Click to expand...
At one time I could drag the tailwheel of my Maule for a couple thousand feet and then go around...probably made up for the care I gave it otherwise. :rolleyes:
 
Very few taildraggers sit at a true stall angle on the ground. A full stall landing (boundary layer separation) will result in the tail wheel touching first. A three point landing is a reduction in lift but not a full stall. Taildraggers are not all the same and no two landings are under the exact same conditions. I am lucky enough to fly two airplanes regularly. The Citabria I jokingly refer to as an "almost taildragger" since it so easy to land. I do wheel landings, three-point and full stall landings in it based on my mood more than anything. Then there is the Waco Taperwing. Ground handling is horrible. I always try for a full stall landing so that it is as slow as I can get it before touchdown. I'm also frequently landing it on a relatively short strip. (For comparison, it stalls about 20mph faster than it's identical Straightwing littermate.)

Airplanes with strong wing drop tendencies are not good candidates for full stall or even three-point landings. An airplane that quits flying too early and too high does not have a relative wind parallel to the ground, so it can be in full stall in any position.

My opinions, take them with a grain of salt.
 
FastEddieB said:
In many hours of teaching tailwheel transition courses in Citabrias I found that, conditions permitting, the very best landings - or at least the least exciting - had the tailwheel rolling on slightly first, with the mains dropping on a second or so later. I tried to instill in my students having this as the goal, feeling for the runway with the tailwheel, and still have this mental image on the now rare occasion I get to fly a tailwheel.

Personally, I found with all the gear touching together, the plane felt more “skittery” for a few seconds as the wings still had some lift to dissipate, and those few seconds of nervousness were where students could get behind the plane and begin to swerve. Tailwheel first felt more like the airplane was done flying, and hence easier.
Click to expand...

I notice this more on the grass, but as a comparatively low time tailwheel pilot (compared to a lot of you folks here!) I notice the "slightly first with the tailwheel" landings tend to pull and line the airplane up straight if there's any remaining hint of a crab in a crosswind, before the mains touch.
 
I may be misunderstanding the question but I was always of the opinion that you pick your landing type and you do that. If you're going to 3-point it, you 3-point it which means the goal is that all 3 touch at the same time or within 1/2 a second of each other. If you're going to wheel it on, you wheel it on which usually means the tail is up at something close to normal flight attitude. Tail low is what happens when pilots aren't willing to commit to either landing type so they're just bringing it in and letting the plane decide what kind of landing it wants to do.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I may be misunderstanding the question but I was always of the opinion that you pick your landing type and you do that. If you're going to 3-point it, you 3-point it which means the goal is that all 3 touch at the same time or within 1/2 a second of each other. If you're going to wheel it on, you wheel it on which usually means the tail is up at something close to normal flight attitude. Tail low is what happens when pilots aren't willing to commit to either landing type so they're just bringing it in and letting the plane decide what kind of landing it wants to do.
Click to expand...
No. Wheel landings are often deliberately tail-low in order to get a low touchdown speed, and the tail is raised a bit to reduce the AoA and therefore the lift after the mains touch. There is nothing wrong with that at all; one just learns to do it. It's the preferred way to reduce the wear and tear on that tailwheel. That tiny tire spins at awesome speeds, meaning accelerated wear, and shimmy is more likely at those speeds, too. Shimmy breaks stuff. Keeping that wheel off until the airplane slows saves money.

Must remember that a "normal flight attitude" also means normal flight speeds. The relationship between angle of attack and airspeed is one that so many pilots seem completely unaware of, and it causes some of them considerable grief in landings. The PPL training is rather poor these days.

I made a wooden jig to measure the actual chordline angle in ground attitude on a Citabria. It's 12 degrees. The means that in the flare, parallel to the runway surface, the AoA is 12 degrees, a long way from its stall angle of 17 degrees. If an airplane sat at stall angle in the three-point attitude it would stand out like a sore thumb. You'd sure notice it.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I may be misunderstanding the question but I was always of the opinion that you pick your landing type and you do that. If you're going to 3-point it, you 3-point it which means the goal is that all 3 touch at the same time or within 1/2 a second of each other. If you're going to wheel it on, you wheel it on which usually means the tail is up at something close to normal flight attitude. Tail low is what happens when pilots aren't willing to commit to either landing type so they're just bringing it in and letting the plane decide what kind of landing it wants to do.
Click to expand...

I mainly fly a 170, I found my shortest landings are nose high tail touching just before the wings stall and drops the mains. I’ve heard it both ways, it’s harder on the tail, but I am not dragging it in any distance on the tail just plopping it in as (un)gracefully as spring gear will let ya.

I usually land tail low on good surfaces like gravel or ice but for me it seems easier to stop without braking much on surfaces like sandbars landing tail first.
 
GRG55 said:
I notice this more on the grass, but as a comparatively low time tailwheel pilot (compared to a lot of you folks here!) I notice the "slightly first with the tailwheel" landings tend to pull and line the airplane up straight if there's any remaining hint of a crab in a crosswind, before the mains touch.
Click to expand...

Zero tail wheel time here but I was thinking that when all the talk about angle of attack was going on. It would act like the feathers on an arrow. Or a like a caster.
 
GRG55 said:
I notice this more on the grass, but as a comparatively low time tailwheel pilot (compared to a lot of you folks here!) I notice the "slightly first with the tailwheel" landings tend to pull and line the airplane up straight if there's any remaining hint of a crab in a crosswind, before the mains touch.
Click to expand...
Yup...drag behind the CG reduces the tendency for the CG to pass the mains.
Juliet Hotel said:
I may be misunderstanding the question but I was always of the opinion that you pick your landing type and you do that. If you're going to 3-point it, you 3-point it which means the goal is that all 3 touch at the same time or within 1/2 a second of each other. If you're going to wheel it on, you wheel it on which usually means the tail is up at something close to normal flight attitude. Tail low is what happens when pilots aren't willing to commit to either landing type so they're just bringing it in and letting the plane decide what kind of landing it wants to do.
Click to expand...
Tail low is also what happens when a pilot wants to do a wheel landing as slowly as possible.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Yup...drag behind the CG reduces the tendency for the CG to pass the mains.

Tail low is also what happens when a pilot wants to do a wheel landing as slowly as possible.
Click to expand...

^^^ This.

I do wheel landings tail low, but not the same attitude as a 3-point, of course. Once the mains touch the stick goes forward to reduce the AOA and plant the mains, and only after that does the tail come down. That's the way I was taught, and it seems to work. For me.
 
I fly tailwheels. Sometimes I wheel land, sometimes I go tail low, sometimes I three point. Sometimes a botched wheel landing turns into a three point. All have a place, pro's and con's. Some aircraft prefer or require a certain landing, some don't care. There is no one size fits all to tailwheel landings. A good pilot can do all of the above when the situation requires.
 
Dan Thomas said:
No. Wheel landings are often deliberately tail-low in order to get a low touchdown speed, and the tail is raised a bit to reduce the AoA and therefore the lift after the mains touch. There is nothing wrong with that at all; one just learns to do it. It's the preferred way to reduce the wear and tear on that tailwheel. That tiny tire spins at awesome speeds, meaning accelerated wear, and shimmy is more likely at those speeds, too. Shimmy breaks stuff. Keeping that wheel off until the airplane slows saves money.

Must remember that a "normal flight attitude" also means normal flight speeds. The relationship between angle of attack and airspeed is one that so many pilots seem completely unaware of, and it causes some of them considerable grief in landings. The PPL training is rather poor these days.

I made a wooden jig to measure the actual chordline angle in ground attitude on a Citabria. It's 12 degrees. The means that in the flare, parallel to the runway surface, the AoA is 12 degrees, a long way from its stall angle of 17 degrees. If an airplane sat at stall angle in the three-point attitude it would stand out like a sore thumb. You'd sure notice it.
Click to expand...
What you describe was my preferred landing technique in the spray planes. Especially the big ones.
 
Dan Thomas said:
SNIP
I made a wooden jig to measure the actual chordline angle in ground attitude on a Citabria. It's 12 degrees. The means that in the flare, parallel to the runway surface, the AoA is 12 degrees, a long way from its stall angle of 17 degrees. If an airplane sat at stall angle in the three-point attitude it would stand out like a sore thumb. You'd sure notice it.
Click to expand...

There seems to be much confusion about this point. Much of it is caused by pilots referring to three point landings as "full stall." There really are three types of landings in a taildragger - wheel, three point, and full stall. But there are only two commonly used names. Even full stall is not quite correct since we rarely get full boundary layer separation. Ground effect and a desire to maintain control mean we get close but don't quite get to that critical angle.

I think there were a very few WWI era biplanes that were at or near the stall in three point.
 
ebetancourt said:
Trying to understand the point. The discussion is tailwheel low wheel landings. Is it the low airspeed or the attitude that presents the possibility of disaster?
Click to expand...

Depends on the model, but in some airplanes certain AOA can cause the wing or windmilling props to blank the airfoil over the tail potentially causing loss of control. I think I had heard that about the Twin Beech in a three point attitude, but I don't recall. I know I've been told three point landings in a DC-3 can cause structural damage to the fuselage.
 
ebetancourt said:
There seems to be much confusion about this point. Much of it is caused by pilots referring to three point landings as "full stall." There really are three types of landings in a taildragger - wheel, three point, and full stall. But there are only two commonly used names. Even full stall is not quite correct since we rarely get full boundary layer separation. Ground effect and a desire to maintain control mean we get close but don't quite get to that critical angle.
Click to expand...
We hardly even get close. This is borne out by the many taildraggers that can lift off and fly along the runway, tail on the runway and the mains well up off the runway. It we were close to the stall in the three-point attitude, this would hardly be possible.
 
If your flight path was angled downward instead of horizontal at the instant of 3 point touchdown, you could be stalled.
 
Prior to the D models, the Staggerwing stalled in an attitude with the tail higher than the mains...landing would increase the AOA beyond stall, so it wouldn’t get airborne again.


Dana said:
If your flight path was angled downward instead of horizontal at the instant of 3 point touchdown, you could be stalled.
Click to expand...
I used to get an accelerated stall in my Maule when rounding out after coming in steep over the trees. Had to roll it up on the mains to keep it on the ground, though. Same with the Pawnee dragging 200 ft of rope over the fence.
 
Dana said:
If your flight path was angled downward instead of horizontal at the instant of 3 point touchdown, you could be stalled.
Click to expand...
Even then it's usually just sink. I've had students do it, flaring too high and levelling off three feet up, and then it slams down hard but the stall warning never says anything. The stall-proof Ercoupes were sometimes wrecked just this way; get them slow and they'd pancake on and get busted up. They didn't need to stall to have an accident.

To get the relative wind to add say, another five degrees to the AoA, taking our hypothetical 12-degree three-point Citabria up to stall at 17 degrees, we'd need to fall three feet in 33 feet. That's a steep fall. The airplane itself is 22 feet long, so in one and a half airplane lengths you have to drop three feet. Three feet is a pretty big drop. And we'd expect the nose to come down rather suddenly. The nose falls in the stall.

How many here have done slow flight training? Nose way high, stall warning howling, power set to maintain altitude: the relative wind is level with the ground, yet the airplane is in an attitude NEVER seen during landing.
 
Dan Thomas said:
To get the relative wind to add say, another five degrees to the AoA, taking our hypothetical 12-degree three-point Citabria up to stall at 17 degrees, we'd need to fall three feet in 33 feet. That's a steep fall. The airplane itself is 22 feet long, so in one and a half airplane lengths you have to drop three feet. Three feet is a pretty big drop.
Click to expand...
I dunno...11:1 is pretty close to the best glide ratio of most light singles. That’s not a “steep fall”, that’s a touchdown 550 feet downfield from over a 50-foot obstacle with no round out or flare...probably worth comparing to the numbers in your performance charts.

Dan Thomas said:
How many here have done slow flight training? Nose way high, stall warning howling, power set to maintain altitude: the relative wind is level with the ground, yet the airplane is in an attitude NEVER seen during landing.
Click to expand...
How many here understand that airflow from the prop providing thrust affects slow flight and stall so they look different than power off?
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
How many here understand that airflow from the prop providing thrust affects slow flight and stall so they look different than power off?
Click to expand...
The airflow over the wing roots does help a bit, but it makes no difference to the rest of the wing. You can do a power-off stall, raising the nose at a rate making sure the altimeter doesn't budge, and the nose is still way high when it lets go.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The airflow over the wing roots does help a bit, but it makes no difference to the rest of the wing. You can do a power-off stall, raising the nose at a rate making sure the altimeter doesn't budge, and the nose is still way high when it lets go.
Click to expand...
What’s the pitch attitude when it “lets go” on landing?

I guess I’m confused as to the relevance of the slow flight statement...if you never see a “stall attitude” on landing, it simply means you’re never doing a full stall landing.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
What’s the pitch attitude when it “lets go” on landing?

I guess I’m confused as to the relevance of the slow flight statement...if you never see a “stall attitude” on landing, it simply means you’re never doing a full stall landing.
Click to expand...
The slow flight thing demonstrates what a stall attitude might be in the flare. It's very steep, and the geometry of the airplane won't permit it without striking the tail with the mains still a long way up.

The sudden drop after a too-high flare that I consider sink rather than a stall is often at a normal landing attitude, sometimes even fairly flat. The nose doesn't even begin to fall as the airplane drops, which tells me that it wasn't a stall. And as an instructor I occasionally saw it, and the stall horn didn't sound either. It should have, if the wing was stalling.

In any case, it's not a good way to land an airplane.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The slow flight thing demonstrates what a stall attitude might be in the flare. It's very steep, and the geometry of the airplane won't permit it without striking the tail with the mains still a long way up.
Click to expand...
That is often the case, as has been previously stated in the thread.
Dan Thomas said:
The sudden drop after a too-high flare that I consider sink rather than a stall is often at a normal landing attitude, sometimes even fairly flat. The nose doesn't even begin to fall as the airplane drops, which tells me that it wasn't a stall. And as an instructor I occasionally saw it, and the stall horn didn't sound either. It should have, if the wing was stalling.
Click to expand...
That would be an entirely different discussion, but in this context, it simply means you haven’t been doing full stall landings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top