Tail wheel Pilots: 3 point or wheel landings?

While a good three-point landing is a joy to behold, I’ve had too many tail wheels depart the airplane. My norm is a power-off, tail-low wheel landing.
 
GeorgeC said:
I learned on a shortish/narrowish paved strip. From the beginning, it was power off wheel landings, get on the brakes with the tail up, put the tail down, more brakes. In retrospect, this was a steep learning curve for me as a new t/w owner. Only later did I figure out that carrying a bit of power makes things a lot easier. Gotta find a bigger runway and practice 3 pointers on pavement...
Click to expand...

One of the better reasons I have seen to need a wheel landing is after a power failure. Pilots tend to be high and fast after a power failure (much better than low and slow). Being able to put it on the runway and start braking early is a good option to prevent overrunning the runway. I don't routinely teach or practice braking with the tail up. I have seen to many taildraggers on their nose or back. Apparently there was one locally here last week, didn't see that one, just heard about it.

Getting the tail down early after a wheel landing can significantly shorten the roll out as well, even if the wheels momentarily lift back off the runway. The drag from the wing does significantly slow you down, but the trade off is less traction on the tires/braking. Works quite well on planes with weak brakes.

The trick to power off wheel landings is speed, to make them easier you need enough energy to get it flying down the runway long enough to gently set it on. The slower you are the less time you have to set it on before your speed decays to the point either drop on or 3 point it.

The trick to slow wheel landings is power, use enough power to fly it down or to the runway at the attitude you want to touch down at.

Either way your touch down speed is directly related to the attitude of the airplane when it touches. Nose High is going to be slow. A flat touch down will be faster.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
MauleSkinner said:
While a good three-point landing is a joy to behold, I’ve had too many tail wheels depart the airplane. My norm is a power-off, tail-low wheel landing.
Click to expand...

I have had to avoid a departing tailwheel while being towed in my glider:). It decided to leave shortly after the towplane lifted the tail off the ground.

Brian
 
Stewartb said:
You guys assume there's a runway under you if the engine quits. Not in my world. Trees or wet swamps dominate close to home giving way to mountains and thick forest further away. One of the reasons I have my personal STOL plane is the safety factor of hitting whatever's down there at 20 mph as opposed to 60+ in my Cessna. Emergency landings here are about controlling the crash.

In normal ops my favorite away strip is about 2' wider than my gear, is short most guys' standards, has water at one end and tall trees at the other. Not many three points are done there. The common factor with STOL comps and my strip are the requirement to hit a spot. The good STOL comp guys are accurate down to the inch on a regular basis. It's equally important for off airport operators. Two point landings are more precise, provide better control in wind, provide better visibility, and provide much better go-around response.
Click to expand...

Two point landing is probably a better name for this technique than wheel landing. The technique between this tail low, power on, Drag it to the point landing, followed by raising the tail for braking is quite different than touching down tail high and fast.

Brian
 
Lots of good information. Thanks, guys. The Compleat Talidraggrr recommends learning the 3 point then wheelies, for better xwind control. Just wanted other opinions. Thanks again
 
I noticed that Stick and Rudder calls three-point landings "unsafe and unbeautiful," but the instructors at my club seem to prefer them for the Citabrias we have.
 
Wheel landings are the default for me.

Very few people stay proficient at both. They pick one and do it all the time and only do the other when they need to. So you end up being able to do one kind in your sleep and needing to think about how to do the other every time you try it. I'd rather have to think about how to do a good 3pt before I try it than have to think about how to do a good wheel landing.
 
Stewartb said:
You guys assume there's a runway under you if the engine quits. Not in my world. Trees or wet swamps dominate close to home giving way to mountains and thick forest further away. One of the reasons I have my personal STOL plane is the safety factor of hitting whatever's down there at 20 mph as opposed to 60+ in my Cessna. Emergency landings here are about controlling the crash.

In normal ops my favorite away strip is about 2' wider than my gear, is short most guys' standards, has water at one end and tall trees at the other. Not many three points are done there. The common factor with STOL comps and my strip are the requirement to hit a spot. The good STOL comp guys are accurate down to the inch on a regular basis. It's equally important for off airport operators. Two point landings are more precise, provide better control in wind, provide better visibility, and provide much better go-around response.
Click to expand...
Not sure that invalidates my point. Good low speed control POWER OFF is what you'd need if you're going to hit the trees if the fan quit, right?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Wheel landings are the default for me.

Very few people stay proficient at both. They pick one and do it all the time and only do the other when they need to.
Click to expand...

I think it's more that people tend to do what they find more personally suitable considering the particular type they are currently flying. Those who have flown or fly a lot of different types don't typically fall into the trap you describe. For example, you almost never see Pitts pilots wheel land except at airshows, not because it's unsafe or difficult, but because it's laughably pointless. On the other hand, most RV pilots wheel land. Cub pilots are pretty evenly split, Swift pilots nearly always wheel land, Sukhoi pilots NEVER wheel land, so on and so forth. Those who go between types do both. Doing wheelies and 3-pointers is a tailwheel 101 skill, and not challenging to do either even if you don't do either type regularly, assuming one is a minimally competent tailwheel pilot to begin with.

This was one of my completely pointless once a year wheel landings in the Pitts done for no reason other than helluvits. :D

 
RyanShort1 said:
Not sure that invalidates my point. Good low speed control POWER OFF is what you'd need if you're going to hit the trees if the fan quit, right?
Click to expand...
Precise control is my preference. Others can do what they think is best. As I said in my initial response, a pilot should be proficient at both.
 
If one lands with full flaps at very low speed in gusty conditions, dragging a wingtip and the prop whilst on one wheel but coming to rest upright, is that technically a three-pointer?
Asking for a friend.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If one lands with full flaps at very low speed in gusty conditions, dragging a wingtip and the prop whilst on one wheel but coming to rest upright, is that technically a three-pointer?
Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
What do full flaps do for your taildragger? Do you use full flaps in your taildragger in crosswinds? Do you even have a taildragger?
 
One big difference between 3-points and wheel landing is the cost of repairs if it goes wrong. Agreed that some airplanes are easier to wheel, some to 3-pt.,...and some in which it’s hazardous to do one or the other. I only wheel-landed twin Beeches, but from what I’ve read, they can be 3-pointed with the proper horizontal incidence adjustment. When I was a lad I was a copilot on the C-46 and saw my Captain 3-point it several times, but not at 50,000lbs. Never flew a staight DC-3, but the C-117 (R-4D-8) had 8ft more horizontal stabilizer span, and one could 3-pt it.

One question I have for the “always wheel-land camp” — In a strong/gusty crosswind do you use brakes? My Luscombe has awkward to use and pathetically ineffective heel brakes, (seriously, there are bicycles with better brakes) and the rudder pedal brake pedal geometry makes it near impossible to steer and brake symultaneously, all of the heel-braked airplanes I’ve flown have that problem. My Stearman has the good redline brakes, and one could wheel land, then brake hard until very slow, then let the tail down. But I think I’d have to practice that alot before trying it in a significant crosswind.
 
j1b3h0 said:
In a strong/gusty crosswind do you use brakes?
Click to expand...
Not in the “always wheel-land camp”, but I do like wheelies in a crosswind so that I can get a firm touch down and steer with the brakes. (What I have flown have hydraulic disk toe brakes.)
j1b3h0 said:
awkward to use and pathetically ineffective heel brakes
Click to expand...
That would be a different story.
 
I use brakes as soon as the rudder loses authority. I've had a Cub with heel brakes. Having a moving rudder pedal and a stationary brake pedal never felt right to me. My new Cub has toe brakes as a result. And FWIW, I always use full flaps to land, including in crosswinds.
 
On the Champ I fly the heel brakes are lined up in such a way that you can push the rudder and the brakes at the same time not that you need them. On the J5 it was was much harder if you really needed the brakes getting on them was just awkward not sure if this is true of all of them. The Chief (11CC) had toe brakes which was nice although only on one side.
 
In the Supercubs I flew, applying brake and rudder inputs at the same time was just as easy and natural as doing it in a plane with toe brakes IME. I never gave it a 2nd thought.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
In the Supercubs I flew, applying brake and rudder inputs at the same time was just as easy and natural as doing it in a plane with toe brakes IME. I never gave it a 2nd thought.
Click to expand...

Same here. It was the toe brakes in my Starduster that worried me.
 
If there's a good breeze, wheelies are easy, hence the preference for crosswind landings. In light winds, 3 pointers are easier. Even with a little bounce, they're preferred to wheel landings.
 
j1b3h0 said:
One question I have for the “always wheel-land camp” — In a strong/gusty crosswind do you use brakes?
Click to expand...
Not exactly an 'always wheel land' guy, but I do tend to prefer wheel landings in strong/gusty x-winds. I don't like to use brakes in those situations when the tail is still in the air. The one potential gotcha with a wheel landing is losing directional control as the tail comes down and you lose rudder effectiveness before the tailwheel touches and starts tracking. That is the danger zone of a wheel landing. If you use brakes while the tail is still in the air, you could slow yourself below the necessary rudder effectiveness speed and lose control before the tail comes down.

When I'm doing a long cross country in the Twin Beech or T6 and find I need to make a landing and there is no good runway nearby aligned with the wind, I'll go for a longer runway so that I have room to work as I fly the tail down. I simply don't combine/attempt short field and strong x-wind. I'm not that good.
 
pigpenracing said:
My tailwheel time is
Decathlon
J-3 Cubs
Pitts S1C, S1S, S1T, S2B, S2C and model 12
Skybolts
Several Christen Eagles
Staudacher D-300D
Airbike
Cessna 140
Cessna 170
Stearman
I 3 point every single time... The only plane that I wheel land sometimes is the Stearman because it likes it.
There is no reason to wheel land. 3 points always work best for me. I think I have about 2500 hours tailwheel time.
Click to expand...
Agree. I have over 8900 tailwheel hours and the only plane I preferred to wheel land was the 140. It seemed to like it.
 
Last edited:
Well, I routinely do both kinds of landings, but in both the Luscombe and the Stearman I tend to 3-point if the wind pipes up. I only fly for fun now so, no reason to go if it’s blowing dogs off chains.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If you use brakes while the tail is still in the air, you could slow yourself below the necessary rudder effectiveness speed and lose control before the tail comes down.
Click to expand...
Technically true. But in that scenario you're already on the brakes which are independent and therefore are able to provide directional control.
 
brcase said:
I have had to avoid a departing tailwheel while being towed in my glider:). It decided to leave shortly after the towplane lifted the tail off the ground.

Brian
Click to expand...
Was that you? That was exactly how I lost my first tailwheel.
(30+ years ago)
 
MauleSkinner said:
While a good three-point landing is a joy to behold, I’ve had too many tail wheels depart the airplane. My norm is a power-off, tail-low wheel landing.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen so many flimsy looking tail wheels that it’s easy to imagine them coming off. My 140 has the large versionScott. Extremely robust. If it is ever torn up, it will be the least of the damage.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I’ve seen so many flimsy looking tail wheels that it’s easy to imagine them coming off. My 140 has the large versionScott. Extremely robust. If it is ever torn up, it will be the least of the damage.
Click to expand...
8” Scotts were 3 of mine...two kingpins broken, and the third was a bolt on the leaf spring.

funny thing is, I was heading out on vacation, visiting pretty much everybody I know west of the Mississippi, and asked my mechanic about the checking the tail wheel...his response was something to the effect of, “they get beat up on sprayers, but you’ll never have a problem.” Left home Saturday, and my third leg the king pin broke and I lost the tail wheel. Fortunately where I landed, the operator had an old one in his hangar that we installed, and I continued my flight. Monday morning I called my mechanic and told him, “next time I ask you to spend my money, I’d appreciate it if you’d do it.” ;) Had him order me a new one for when I got home.

for the record, the first broken kingpin was on a Pawnee, and it’s very possible that this one came off a Pawnee as well. So maybe my mechanic was kinda right.
 
Come to think of it I've had two tailwheel failures as well... Hmmm. One was a solid tire that literally self destructed on rollout and the other was a leaf spring failure while taxiing.
 
Lang tires have issues from time to time with coming right off the wheel. Even on pavement, I'd say the airplane rolls even straighter after the tire is gone LOL
 
RyanShort1 said:
Come to think of it I've had two tailwheel failures as well... Hmmm. One was a solid tire that literally self destructed on rollout and the other was a leaf spring failure while taxiing.
Click to expand...
My Dad was checking our future instructor out in the 140 and had the solid tire pass them on landing.:rolleyes:
 
Speaking of, I got a call from the shop yesterday, they went to taxi it, the new brakes work great. Without the brakes, though, it turns left, but needs a lot of power to turn right. It taxi'd fine when I brought it in. Lang t/w on a 140. Vert der ferk?

edited to add: they meant it's easier to make it caster to the left than to the right
 
Last edited:
GeorgeC said:
Speaking of, I got a call from the shop yesterday, they went to taxi it, the new brakes work great. Without the brakes, though, it turns left, but needs a lot of power to turn right. It taxi'd fine when I brought it in. Lang t/w on a 140. Vert der ferk?
Click to expand...

Brake dragging? See if the left disc is much hotter after it's taxied.
 
GeorgeC said:
Speaking of, I got a call from the shop yesterday, they went to taxi it, the new brakes work great. Without the brakes, though, it turns left, but needs a lot of power to turn right. It taxi'd fine when I brought it in. Lang t/w on a 140. Vert der ferk?
Click to expand...
Torque & P-factor are huge in that airplane. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top