Tail wheel Pilots: 3 point or wheel landings?

Need to be able to do both, but really I agree that a 3-point is for when you are a little rusty or have botched a wheelie and lost your nerve :) In my experience with a strong crosswind a wheelie (one wheel) is the only way to go if you have a big rudder (e.g. Citabria). Also, for precision touchdown (e.g. short field) wheelies give better control. I speak only from limited experience in types (mostly Champ and Citabria) but several hundred hours in those.
 
Nobody has mentioned this yet, but a 3-point landing assumes the wing is near its critical AoA when on the ground in a 3-point attitude. My Vans RV-8 doesn’t have enough AoA on the ground to stall the wing, so a full stall landing hits tailwheel first with the likelihood of eventually causing damage to the bulkhead and mounting hardware. If you’re careful to not hit the tail, and do get it down on all three points simultaneously it is much squirrelier as the wing is still flying and the wheels aren’t loaded up, so it’s easy to pick up a drift, or lift a wing which then turns into a swerve as the airplane decelerates. At least in the RV series, wheel landings every time for me. I’ve 3 pointed other airplanes, Cubs, Decathlon’s, Stearmans, but the RV just doesn’t like it. So it depends on the aircraft type in my book.
 
RhinoDrvr said: ↑
a full stall landing hits tailwheel first

Not sure “hits” is necessarily the right word.

Done right, you can roll the tailwheel on quite gently. In something like a Cub, Champ or Citabria the stick will be just about all the way back and the mains will drop maybe 6” or so when the wing gives up. Quite slow and safe, if not always the smoothest landing.

Stipulated there are planes out there where that technique may not work well.
 
I three point my short gear RV-4 all the time. It is easy to touch down tailwheel first, but it isn’t like it is absorbing anymore weight than normal since the wing is still flying. It is also easy to simply hold bit less back pressure and touch down on all three at once. I can hit slightly t/w first in my J-3 as well. Never had an issue with either.

I had a Starduster Too and in a three point attitude, it wasn’t stalled. It could be real interesting three pointing and hauling back on the stick only to have it balloon up about ten feet and then stall. I did have a tailwheel problem with it...bad weld on rear attachment flange broke. Also broke a flat spring. Most it was an early design flaw which put over 100 lbs weight on tailwheel. Later changes moved main gear axles back almost a foot lengthened engine mount. That made them much better on the ground.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If your tail hits first you're not doing a full stall landing.

I tend to touch my tail first as I get used to my slat wing Cub. Unless I'm carrying a good amount of power to maintain nose high it means I'm landing with too much speed.
 
Stewartb said:
If your tail hits first you're not doing a full stall landing.

I tend to touch my tail first as I get used to my slat wing Cub. Unless I'm carrying a good amount of power to maintain nose high it means I'm landing with too much speed.
Click to expand...

Confused.

Doesn’t any landing “flatter” than tailwheel first imply more speed?
 
No. Touching tail first with the power set low means you're scrubbing speed. Slow it down a little and the elevator can't hold the nose that high. That's my take on it, anyway. Success depends on how much drag you can create, I suppose. An RV is much slipperier Than my Cub.
 
A tail first landing can be anywhere from stall speed up to the speed corresponding to the 3 point AOA.
 
Stewartb said:
No. Touching tail first with the power set low means you're scrubbing speed. Slow it down a little and the elevator can't hold the nose that high. That's my take on it, anyway. Success depends on how much drag you can create, I suppose. An RV is much slipperier Than my Cub.
Click to expand...
I believe that a lot of that depends upon the aircraft.
 
One of my students brought up an interesting point: when making a wheel landing, you almost have to land twice; first to gently roll it on and second, to get the tail down and slow to taxi-speed.
 
j1b3h0 said:
One of my students brought up an interesting point: when making a wheel landing, you almost have to land twice; first to gently roll it on and second, to get the tail down and slow to taxi-speed.
Click to expand...
Describing it this way makes it seem much more tricky than it actually is. Its land the wheels, let it slow a little bit, then one simple movement of the stick and the tail is down. Pretty simple. Writing this out is required putting much more thought into it than was ever required in the plane.
 
j1b3h0 said:
One of my students brought up an interesting point: when making a wheel landing, you almost have to land twice; first to gently roll it on and second, to get the tail down and slow to taxi-speed.
Click to expand...
Or, just wait until you are stopped.
 
j1b3h0 said:
One of my students brought up an interesting point: when making a wheel landing, you almost have to land twice; first to gently roll it on and second, to get the tail down and slow to taxi-speed.
Click to expand...

Thats one way to look at it, but it does impress the point that you must still be flying the airplane even with the wheels on the ground.
 
It’s a good point.

When you opt for a wheel landing because the winds are gusty, you will eventually have to get the tail down with those same gusts present.

The key is that with differential braking, you have means beyond just the rudder to keep the nose pointed down the runway. And when the time arrives to smoothly but firmly plant the tailwheel, you’ll be going slow enough that even if an inopportune gust cocks you 90° to the runway as the tailwheel comes down, it’s likely to be a non-event - dramatic ground loops only happen at speed.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Describing it this way makes it seem much more tricky than it actually is. Its land the wheels, let it slow a little bit, then one simple movement of the stick and the tail is down. Pretty simple. Writing this out is required putting much more thought into it than was ever required in the plane.
Click to expand...
I agree...I think one of the reasons pilots struggle with things like wheel landings (or W&B, or NDBs, or whatever) is that they were convinced by either themselves or their instructors that it’s hard.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
Nobody has mentioned this yet, but a 3-point landing assumes the wing is near its critical AoA when on the ground in a 3-point attitude. My Vans RV-8 doesn’t have enough AoA on the ground to stall the wing, so a full stall landing hits tailwheel first with the likelihood of eventually causing damage to the bulkhead and mounting hardware. If you’re careful to not hit the tail, and do get it down on all three points simultaneously it is much squirrelier as the wing is still flying and the wheels aren’t loaded up, so it’s easy to pick up a drift, or lift a wing which then turns into a swerve as the airplane decelerates. At least in the RV series, wheel landings every time for me. I’ve 3 pointed other airplanes, Cubs, Decathlon’s, Stearmans, but the RV just doesn’t like it. So it depends on the aircraft type in my book.
Click to expand...

Apparently those outside the USA haven't gotten the memo that the RV-8 is near impossible to 3-point - ;)

 
RhinoDrvr said:
Nobody has mentioned this yet, but a 3-point landing assumes the wing is near its critical AoA when on the ground in a 3-point attitude. My Vans RV-8 doesn’t have enough AoA on the ground to stall the wing, so a full stall landing hits tailwheel first with the likelihood of eventually causing damage to the bulkhead and mounting hardware. If you’re careful to not hit the tail, and do get it down on all three points simultaneously it is much squirrelier as the wing is still flying and the wheels aren’t loaded up, so it’s easy to pick up a drift, or lift a wing which then turns into a swerve as the airplane decelerates. At least in the RV series, wheel landings every time for me. I’ve 3 pointed other airplanes, Cubs, Decathlon’s, Stearmans, but the RV just doesn’t like it. So it depends on the aircraft type in my book.
Click to expand...

A three point landing does not have to mean a full stall landing. It only means the airplane is in the attitude where all three wheels touch down at the same time, or perhaps tail just slightly first. The only time AOA matters in a three point is if the attitude exceeds critical angle of attack and a stall happens first, but that would be a design issue.
 
midwestpa24 said:
A three point landing does not have to mean a full stall landing.
Click to expand...
Whoever was the first person to say the words 'full stall landing' needs to hunted down and beaten. A fully stalled wing is not what you want to happen during landing.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
What happens to the nose of the plane when you practice a power off stall? Is that something you'd want to happen when you're holding it off the runway waiting for it quit flying?
Click to expand...
I don’t hold it 10 or 20 feet, or more, off the runway for a full stall landing. The wheels will support the airplane when the wing won’t, and the stab/elevator is still doing its job in most airplanes after the wing is done.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
What happens to the nose of the plane when you practice a power off stall? Is that something you'd want to happen when you're holding it off the runway waiting for it quit flying?
Click to expand...

Sure it is...and preferably from less than 6" in height above the runway. Most TW airplanes will touch well tailwheel first if you stall it before touchdown, so you don't do that - but there are some types that sit on the ground virtually at the stall attitude - J-3 and Stearman for example. You could definitely do a full stall landing in Champ with the longer "no-bounce" oleos. Same with planes with big bush tires. This thread is getting very pedantic.
 
I think that wheel landings are perceived to be more complicated than they actually are. Part of the reason is the way they are taught. Most instructors will break the whole process into segments and have you come in with excess speed to give you more time to "get it" Once you have figured it out and get comfortable with the airplane a wheel landing can be executed without any special approach, you can turn a 3-pointer into a wheel landing at any point if you so choose (in those airplanes that don't care)

As to which is better, the obvious answer is "it depends" For one thing - the airplane. Some simply do not like wheel landings and vice versa. In airplanes like Cubs and Champs that don't really give a hoot then it's mostly a personal preference. The only time I use a wheel landing in my current airplane is if I'm landing where there are rocks or ruts and I want to protect the tailwheel for as long as possible. I don't see it as being beneficial for crosswinds or gusts. As someone already pointed out sooner or later you need to put the tail down anyway but as often seen, with the proper skill, one can keep the tail off until you come to a complete stop if you want.
 
RoscoeT said:
Sure it is...and preferably from less than 6" in height above the runway. Most TW airplanes will touch well tailwheel first if you stall it before touchdown, so you don't do that - but there are some types that sit on the ground virtually at the stall attitude - J-3 and Stearman for example. You could definitely do a full stall landing in Champ with the longer "no-bounce" oleos. Same with planes with big bush tires. This thread is getting very pedantic.
Click to expand...
You might be right. But every CFI' I've flown with who talked about wanting to see a full stall landing was actually looking for an eminent stall or at best partial stall landing. I can't speak for you and I can't speak for every CFI that exists. But the ones I've known would talk about wanting to see a full stall landing but then would teach a partial stall landing.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
You might be right. But every CFI' I've flown with who talked about wanting to see a full stall landing was actually looking for an eminent stall or at best partial stall landing. I can't speak for you and I can't speak for every CFI that exists. But the ones I've known would talk about wanting to see a full stall landing but then would teach a partial stall landing.
Click to expand...

Lots of people misuse the term "full stall" landing interchangeably with "3-point" landing. As has been said plenty, 3-point is not typically an actual full stall landing. Trikes are better suited for true full stall landings. Tailwheel CFIs do not generally try to get a student to display a stall indication on landing, regardless of aircraft type. 3-point is generally an attitude landing, not a stall landing.
 
RoscoeT said:
Apparently those outside the USA haven't gotten the memo that the RV-8 is near impossible to 3-point - ;)

Click to expand...

That WAS a nice 3-pointer! Probably better than I could do consistently. I will submit though, that being on grass a little of the dartiness I was talking about is removed. But, point taken.
 
I co-owned a Decathlon with a partner who learned to fly in a Champ in 1946 and had about 20,000 hours, at least half of them in taildraggers. If you screwed up in a taildragger in Florida, the FAA would send you to him for remedial instruction. I asked him this question and his answer was 3 pointers always; the sooner you have the tailwheel on the ground the sooner you have the plane under control.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I co-owned a Decathlon with a partner who learned to fly in a Champ in 1946 and had about 20,000 hours, at least half of them in taildraggers. If you screwed up in a taildragger in Florida, the FAA would send you to him for remedial instruction. I asked him this question and his answer was 3 pointers always; the sooner you have the tailwheel on the ground the sooner you have the plane under control.
Click to expand...
Unless the aircraft is on the ground and it's out of control :)
been there too.
 
I don’t know what’s best. Both have their benefits. I think conditions, aircraft type and pilot preference/comfort all contribute to what’s best. I only have ~3000 hours of tailwheel time and all of it minus a few hundred is in air tractors and thrush aircraft. I favor a tail low but still mains first landing. I have the added benefit of being able to retract the flaps with a switch on the stick. Once I get the mains on I’m pulling the flaps up and flying the tail down so it stops flying very quickly after touchdown. But I’m big on having all my controls setup so hands never come off throttle and stick. Hence my ocd to always wire up a flap switch on the stick if ones not already there... doesn’t really translate well outside of flying the spray planes.
 
Last edited:
starting a little aircraft engine I easy, try starting 18 cylinder 3350 wright with electric primer
 
Ed Haywood said:
I co-owned a Decathlon with a partner who learned to fly in a Champ in 1946 and had about 20,000 hours, at least half of them in taildraggers. If you screwed up in a taildragger in Florida, the FAA would send you to him for remedial instruction. I asked him this question and his answer was 3 pointers always; the sooner you have the tailwheel on the ground the sooner you have the plane under control.
Click to expand...
So he really didn’t answer the question.
 
I trained with two instructors, each with about 10k tailwheel hours. One is an always-wheel-land guy, the other is an always-3-point guy. I like and respect them both, and learned from each of them. As with many things, what works is somewhere in between.
 
Confession time. I've always been a tail low wheeler guy in my Cessna and even my old PA-12. This new Cub? Over the fence at 30 mph and touch down at 22 mph. Can't wheel land at those speeds!
 
For me it depends on what oil I'm using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top