Wheel Landings?

Arnold

Arnold

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,483
Location
Philadelphia Area
Display Name
Display name:
Arnold
I typically try to stay sharp with three-point and wheel landings. I've talked to folks who say a small tail dragger should never make wheel landings.

Your thoughts?
 
I've known pilots who would 3 pt 95% of the time and only wheel land a handful of times per year and I've known pilots who would wheel land 95% of the time and only 3 pt'd a handful of times per year. In my experience, those who wheel land as a default can 3 pt when they need to and easily make it look like they land that way all the time. Again in my experience, with rare exception the same cannot be said about the wheel landings of those who 3 pt most of the time. But I'm bias because wheel landings were my default in every tail dragger I've flown.
 
Never is pretty absolute. Still, I'd say that generally 3-pt landings are preferred because the transition time with its loss of tail feather effectiveness is less. Also, ground loops are less violent and cause less damage in 3-pt configurations. A ground loop during the transition phase of a wheel landing can be memorable.

A lot depends on the plane, field, X-wind, and pilot, though.

L-19s are tall, light, narrow, & springy: not a good combination (on top of young, cocky, and inexperienced). I frightened myself more than once in Vietnam. OTOH, the Aeronca's super-long oleo struts take the bite out of most landings (a pain to maintain, but innovative nonetheless).
 
Having had several tailwheels break and/or fall off the airplane, my take is that the tailwheel is a weak link in the system. I try to minimize abuse of it. ;)

But as I told my brother when he was getting checked out in a Citabria, and the instructor didn’t like the technique we were taught previously, “If you ask 5 taildragger pilots how to land the airplane, you’ll get six different opinions. Mine is the only one that’s right, but fly his airplane the way he wants you to.”

tailwheel pilots tend to be polarized, and any generic statements are probably based more on a specific experience with a specific airplane than any procedure that is generically better.
 
Last edited:
Never wheel land. Never use the brakes. Never add power. Or, so I've heard. But personally, I do all three as appropriate. In the Cessna 120, I did wheel landings probably 90% of the time because they were easier. Now, more of a mix. To make my "three full stop", I prefer a stop and go, so STAND on them mofo brakes to get to a stop with the minimum runway.

The dreaded "transition" from tail up to three point is stupid easy even in a nasty crosswind if you have decent brakes to steer with. Grabby brakes? Whole 'nuther story.
 
Arnold said:
I typically try to stay sharp with three-point and wheel landings. I've talked to folks who say a small tail dragger should never make wheel landings.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I have no personal experience, only what I've read: 3-point landing were standard initially because planes landed on fields (literally "airfields", not runways); in a situation like that, with a rough surface, the 3-point landing made sense (have the weight full back aft before touching down to minimise the risk of flipping in a hidden hole or ditch). As planes got larger and airfields started to get smooth prepared runways (grass, gravel, or pavement), the airlines and military pilots of higher-performance aircraft universally adopted wheel landings over 3-point, but small-plane pilots held onto their older habits. That's about the moment in history that Wolfgang Langwiesche was trying to wean his fellow pilots from the habit (I don't necessary endorse or oppose what he wrote in 1944, but here it is):

The three-point landing is not the only way to get an airplane down. It is not even the best way. Both air-line pilots and pilots of "hot" service aircraft have long abandoned it. It is essentially an unsafe and unbeautiful maneuver, for it requires that the ship be flown near the stall or actually into a stall, that is, that the pilot throw the airplane deliberately out of control—and near the ground at that. …
Click to expand...

:) And there's a lot more where that came from. If you have a copy of Stick and Rudder on your shelf, start reading at page 305 (if you have the same edition as me), or look up "Wheel landings" in the index.
 
David Megginson said:
I have no personal experience, only what I've read: 3-point landing were standard initially because planes landed on fields (literally "airfields", not runways); in a situation like that, with a rough surface, the 3-point landing made sense (have the weight full back aft before touching down to minimise the risk of flipping in a hidden hole or ditch). As planes got larger and airfields started to get smooth prepared runways (grass, gravel, or pavement), the airlines and military pilots of higher-performance aircraft universally adopted wheel landings over 3-point, but small-plane pilots held onto their older habits. That's about the moment in history that Wolfgang Langwiesche was trying to wean his fellow pilots from the habit (I don't necessary endorse or oppose what he wrote in 1944, but here it is):



:) And there's a lot more where that came from. If you have a copy of Stick and Rudder on your shelf, start reading at page 305 (if you have the same edition as me), or look up "Wheel landings" in the index.
Click to expand...
Langweische had some good stuff, but he has the same problem as the rest of us…he treats what he thinks as absolute truth when it isn’t. ;)
 
Arnold said:
I typically try to stay sharp with three-point and wheel landings. I've talked to folks who say a small tail dragger should never make wheel landings.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I try to mix it up 50/50.

-Robert
 
I prefer wheel landings.

So much easier on the plane than wing landings....

DDFOPWWVIZHL7AVTXKJF7J3H4M.jpg


Just FYI....this is not me...
 
This is probably one of those topics that has been beat to death.

There are no absolutes. A good tailwheel pilot can do both, and knows which one the situation calls for. Now some aircraft have particular handling characteristics that favor one over the other. Some even require one type of landing. For example, I've always been told you should not 3 point a DC-3/C-47 because it can cause tail damage. I don't know that personally as I've never flown one.
 
midwestpa24 said:
This is probably one of those topics that has been beat to death.

There are no absolutes. A good tailwheel pilot can do both, and knows which one the situation calls for. Now some aircraft have particular handling characteristics that favor one over the other. Some even require one type of landing. For example, I've always been told you should not 3 point a DC-3/C-47 because it can cause tail damage. I don't know that personally as I've never flown one.
Click to expand...
Wheel landings were also generally the rule for WWII USAAF aircraft, according to Langwiesche (who was writing and instructing at the time). There were probably exceptions he didn't mention — I could see the L4 Grasshopper doing 3-point landings in fields, for example.
 
I like wheel landings for most of my flying but a 3-point after what I refer to as a parachute approach works just fine, too.
 
They do not recommend wheel landings on my C195 with crosswind gear...it will land nicely either way...wheel landings or 3 point.
 
midwestpa24 said:
For example, I've always been told you should not 3 point a DC-3/C-47 because it can cause tail damage. I don't know that personally as I've never flown one.
Click to expand...

I’ve been told that for most bigger taildraggers the tailwheel is a weak point and should be treated as such.
 
Arnold said:
I typically try to stay sharp with three-point and wheel landings. I've talked to folks who say a small tail dragger should never make wheel landings.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Half the people you talk to in life are full of shiz.
 
My advice?

Keep all the tools in your bag sharp... which means you need to occasionally mix things up and stay familiar with your options.
 
DavidWhite said:
I’ve been told that for most bigger taildraggers the tailwheel is a weak point and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that there are airplanes where that may be true, but it is not related to weight or size.

AFAIK, the largest flying tailwheel airplanes still flying at B-17s. The active B-17 pilots I know all say the airplane in fact likes three points. TBMs are another large heavy tailwheel type that does just fine with 3-points. I've never seen anyone wheel land a TBM.

The two airplanes that come to mind that no one 3 points are Beech 18s and DC-3s. The issue with the Beech 18 is the angle of incidence of the horizontal stab. The very early Beech 18s (C models) would 3 point just fine. Starting with the D, Beech started adjusting her horizontal stab for greater cruise performance. The result is the later Twin Beech's can get really squirrely trying to 3 point. A good friend who has an H-model has three pointed his on grass. He said he wouldn't try it on pavement. And he's a much better tailwheel pilot than I am.

The DC-3.....honestly couldn't tell you what the issue is and I've flown a couple of them. I suspect that in the 1930s they 3 pointed them. But I am willing to bet that there are virtually no pilots alive today who have done that. They were wheel landing DC-3's by the late 40s and I don't think anyone has ever tried to three point a DC-3 since then. In other words the reason we fly them the way we do has quite likely been lost to history.

The unconfirmed legend I have heard was that by the end of the war the airframes already had so many cycles on them that no two would behave exactly alike when 3-pointing which resulted in some ugly landings and that is conceivably where tail damage could have occurred.
 
Stewartb said:
What’s the point of crosswind gear if not for 2-point?
Click to expand...
Never flown with cross-wind gear, but my understanding of the design is specifically for 3 points in a crosswind to minimize chance of ground loop if you touched down with any drift.

My Twin Beech had cross-wind gear on it when the previous owner bought it. He tried a few wheel landings and hated the gear. Said it felty very funky and quickly had the wheels changed out.
 
Point of order! ;)
Fearless Tower said:
The two airplanes that come to mind that no one 3 points are Beech 18s and DC-3s. The issue with the Beech 18 is the angle of incidence of the horizontal stab. The very early Beech 18s (C models) would 3 point just fine. Starting with the D, Beech started adjusting her horizontal stab for greater cruise performance. The result is the later Twin Beech's can get really squirrely trying to 3 point. A good friend who has an H-model has three pointed his on grass. He said he wouldn't try it on pavement. And he's a much better tailwheel pilot than I am.
Click to expand...
We did 3-pointers on pavements in an E model (I believe) when I got training in the -18. Yes, it’s a little squirrelly, but not unmanageable.
The DC-3.....honestly couldn't tell you what the issue is and I've flown a couple of them. I suspect that in the 1930s they 3 pointed them. But I am willing to bet that there are virtually no pilots alive today who have done that. They were wheel landing DC-3's by the late 40s and I don't think anyone has ever tried to three point a DC-3 since then. In other words the reason we fly them the way we do has quite likely been lost to history.
Click to expand...
If the were doing them into WWII, I know of one guy who’s still (I think) alive, although it’s been 4 or 5 years since I’ve seen him. But I don’t know how he landed the airplane.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
If the were doing them into WWII, I know of one guy who’s still (I think) alive, although it’s been 4 or 5 years since I’ve seen him. But I don’t know how he landed the airplane.
Click to expand...
Honestly don't know for sure. I just found a WWII Army training video and they were wheel landing it then.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Honestly don't know for sure. I just found a WWII Army training video and they were wheel landing it then.
Click to expand...
To quote Langwiesche again, he wrote in 1944 that all airliners and "hot" military planes did wheel landings exclusively, and didn't suggest that it was a new thing then.

(I assume his "hot military planes" didn't include carrier-launched planes, who — I believe, as an outsider — needed to land tail-low to hook the wire.)
 
I attended a CAF ground school session for the C-46 China Doll years ago, and they said that they did exclusively wheel landings in it.
 
David Megginson said:
To quote Langwiesche again, he wrote in 1944 that all airliners and "hot" military planes did wheel landings exclusively, and didn't suggest that it was a new thing then.
Click to expand...
Wheel landings weren't new then, but contrary to what Langwiesche wrote, plenty of 'hot' non-Navy military planes like P-51s and P-47s were still 3-pointing when he wrote that.
 
Last edited:
In my sweet little ragwing 140 I’m a 95% three pointer guy. It’s just too lightly wingloaded to easily wheel land.
 
I most always three point the landings and more than not I'll use full flaps. Manufacturer recommends to always use three point for take offs and landings.

I've done wheelies on landing and lifted the tail on take off. Neither is difficult but it is a short coupled machine and you gotta be paying attention when it's on the mains. But as I understand it that's a rule a pilot should always follow.
 
MBDiagMan said:
It’s just too lightly wingloaded to easily wheel land.
Click to expand...

??? How does wing loading apply? J-3 Cubs and T-Craft are way more of a kite than a 140 and they wheel land great, as nearly all tailwheel airplanes do that don't have severe prop clearance issues.
 
MBDiagMan said:
In my sweet little ragwing 140 I’m a 95% three pointer guy. It’s just too lightly wingloaded to easily wheel land.
Click to expand...

Haven’t flown a 140, but isn’t it essentially a slightly smaller ‘48 170?

The 170 wheel lands beautifully, although leaving a little power in until the wheels touch helps.
 
Stewartb said:
What’s the point of crosswind gear if not for 2-point?
Click to expand...

You land in a 3 point attitude in a crab...the wheels track down the runway while you are rolling out. I never had any issues doing a wheel landing with crosswind gear other than keeping my big feet off the brakes :)
 
The tailwheel going a different direction than the mains sounds like a recipe for a groundloop.
 
Which is better for landing on a treadmill?
 
Doug Reid said:
You land in a 3 point attitude in a crab...the wheels track down the runway while you are rolling out. I never had any issues doing a wheel landing with crosswind gear other than keeping my big feet off the brakes :)
Click to expand...

With heel brakes I avoid that problem.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Haven’t flown a 140, but isn’t it essentially a slightly smaller ‘48 170?

The 170 wheel lands beautifully, although leaving a little power in until the wheels touch helps.
Click to expand...
I find the same to be true of my 140A.
 
Fearless Tower said:
AFAIK, the largest flying tailwheel airplanes still flying at B-17s. The active B-17 pilots I know all say the airplane in fact likes three points. TBMs are another large heavy tailwheel type that does just fine with 3-points. I've never seen anyone wheel land a TBM.

The two airplanes that come to mind that no one 3 points are Beech 18s and DC-3s.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm lucky to fly all three. The C-47 and Twin Beech are wheelies only. The B-17? It loves the 3 pointer! Lands like a 50000 lb Cub with that big fat wing. I tried to wheel it on once. Once.

And my RV-8, wheelies please. I've tried to 3 point it but it just feels squirrelly about it...
 
I haven't done a 3 point in so long, I'd have to really concentrate on how to do it.

Most people that say you shouldn't wheel land are the ones that don't have the coordination to do a wheel landing.
Wheel landing allows for better visibility until the tail comes down, it puts all the weight on the mains for better braking, and it protects the little tiny tailwheel in rough conditions.
 
I try and mix it up in my Decathlon. When I do pattern work I shoot for about 50/50 between wheel and 3 pointers. I go through phases where I favor one over the other. My mood changes over time.

My AFM says use 3 point for off airport emergency landings, to minimize touchdown speed. That makes sense.

I prefer 3 point when there is a stiff crosswind. I was taught by a guy with 30,000 tailwheel hours that the sooner you get the tailwheel in contact with the ground, the more control you have. But that is a matter of preference in most aircraft. Each pilot should use the technique they are more comfortable with and proficient in for the aircraft they are flying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top