Which is harder to land? Tailwheel or Glider

[Maxnr]

I swore to myself, that I would stay out of this. But I have to say ONE thing and I'm gone. Tail dragging airplanes and gliders land differently in one respect. First, I was taught to land airplanes kinda slowly. Tail draggers, nose draggers, ME's & helos. I got into gliders after a couple of thousand hrs in those and there was one new thing. That is, you are going the fastest ever in a glider when landing. And there will always be a number of those 16 yr old, recently soloed pilots watching and cruelly critiquing your landing. Raise the nose a millimeter in what they call a flare and they will call you on it. On the other hand, no one says "Boo" when I do a full stall landing in a Skyhawk. Or a normal landing. Gliders made me appreciate spoilers. I flew one Airplane that had them. Taylorcraft made a slew of "L" birds during WW2. They converted the L1 (I think that was the one) into the TG-1 glider. It was easily converted back to an airplane in the civilian market. They kept the spoilers. And there was one on my field. I was invited for a flight. Spoilers are impressive.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I'm the wrong person to ask, as I have landed neither, but my casual observation is that in one you get multiple tries, and the other you don't.

 

[MRC01]

... I don’t really understand why tailwheel flying is considered black magic. In fact, I’ve been told by an instructor that if you have never flown at all, you will solo in about the same amount of time in a tailwheel airplane as you would in a tricycle...

When landing, tailwheels are less forgiving of airspeed variance (being too fast or too slow) and require active feet on the rudder, and much more careful braking (or no braking at all!) to keep it going straight ahead because the center of mass is behind the main wheels. It's not necessarily harder because when landing any airplane, even tricycle gear, you should nail the airspeed spot-on and use the rudder properly. But tricycle gear is more forgiving of these pilot mistakes: airspeed being too fast or too slow, and the back end of the airplane doesn't have the same tendency to come around on you. So in practice, the tailwheel can be considered harder because you have to do it right, you can't be as sloppy as you can with tricycle gear.

 

[Salty]

I'm the wrong person to ask, as I have landed neither, but my casual observation is that in one you get multiple tries, and the other you don't.

There's an entire rating devoted to that difference. An endorsement is not needed on top of the rating.

 

[Kritchlow]

I have 0.2 PIC tailwheel time, with ZERO landings and ZERO takeoffs.
It was for my CFI spin training in the 80’s.

I could be mistaken, but I do believe I am legally qualified to fly a tail dragger as PIC with no further instruction.

Cannot say that about a glider… :insert sarcastic smiley here:

 

[dbahn]

Yes, you are, and you had twice as much time as legally required.

 

[dbahn]

The cans of worms are self-opening here on POA.

In my opinion, based on a measly 350 hours tailwheel time so far in a half dozen types, landing a taildragger is only hard if you have too much tricycle experience before you start learning. I don't have glider time upon which to base an opinion, but my guess is that the following statement is true of both gliders and taildraggers (and maybe even helicopters, flying boats, dirigibles, and fighter jets): There are some widowmakers in the bunch but the basic skillset is not hard to learn.

I'm at around 1500h tailwheel and a little under 300h in gliders, having instructed in both of those. I go back to my original statement that neither one is hard but that the tailwheel aircraft is more likely to ground loop with a crosswind, and it can happen very quickly. "Generally" in a glider the ground loop is caused by the wing touching the ground, which causes the rotation. In a TW airplane the wing is typically well off the ground initially when wind and/or excessive rudder correction or differential braking leads to the CG rotating from behind the landing gear with insufficient rudder and aileron authority to stop it.

Prevention is different in each. In the glider the goal is to keep the wings level on the rollout. In the TW airplane it's to keep the CG directly behind the landing gear during the rollout, usually by small corrections with rudder, often rapidly (i.e. "happy feet") to prevent any CG induced rotation. Overcorrection is often a factor in initiating the sequence.

 

[Kritchlow]

I should add that I could do it for hire seeing as though I’m a CP in SEL.

 

[Pinecone]

If an endorsement indicates it to be more difficult, then the glider would be more difficult. It requires a completely different checkride and written. Not just an instructor signing it off.

Because legally it is not an Airplane.

 

[Kritchlow]

Seriously… a tailwheel is an endorsement because it’s basically takeoff and landing.
A glider is an entirely different way to fly.

 

[Daleandee]

LOL! I hate to be the one to cost you a stripe on your epaulet, but I’m afraid that if a dummy like me can fly tailwheel with no history of a ground loop, you need to get out the scissors and also relax your walk.

Just stirring the pot a bit ...

I'm a dummy myself and I've often told folks the same thing, i.e. if I can do it it can't be too difficult!

 

[MBDiagMan]

When landing, tailwheels are less forgiving of airspeed variance (being too fast or too slow) and require active feet on the rudder, and much more careful braking (or no braking at all!) to keep it going straight ahead because the center of mass is behind the main wheels. It's not necessarily harder because when landing any airplane, even tricycle gear, you should nail the airspeed spot-on and use the rudder properly. But tricycle gear is more forgiving of these pilot mistakes: airspeed being too fast or too slow, and the back end of the airplane doesn't have the same tendency to come around on you. So in practice, the tailwheel can be considered harder because you have to do it right, you can't be as sloppy as you can with tricycle gear.

With something a little less than 2,000 tailwheel landings without a mishap, I am aware of this, but it is still not difficult IMHO. You should be flying the numbers accurately regardless of what you’re flying. It takes a little longer to learn tailwheel, but I just don’t see it as more difficult than anything else. Maybe some folks are considering a little longer learning curve as making it more difficult.

Edit: After thinking about it a little bit, I think that being comfortable cross controlling an airplane is probably more important than accurately flying the numbers. If you’re not good at cross controlling, you will have some tough cross wind landings. You could even clip the gear.

 

[MRC01]

With something a little less than 2,000 tailwheel landings without a mishap, I am aware of this, but it is still not difficult IMHO. You should be flying the numbers accurately regardless of what you’re flying. ...

Agreed, but let's face it, a lot of pilots just get sloppy. One should always do it right, but if you do it wrong, tricycle gear will forgive things that a tailwheel won't. Insurance rates reflect this.

.. Edit: After thinking about it a little bit, I think that being comfortable cross controlling an airplane is probably more important than accurately flying the numbers. If you’re not good at cross controlling, you will have some tough cross wind landings. You could even clip the gear.

Indeed. I would say a person like that is not even proficient to fly at all. You never know when you might encounter a crosswind or other situation requiring those basic skills. Cross controlling (slips) are required basic maneuvers for all private pilots. Those who aren't comfortable with it should go fly with a CFI and knock the rust off. Better yet, get a tailwheel endorsement even if you fly tricycle gear. Besides, it's fun.

 

[dbahn]

I should add that I could do it for hire seeing as though I’m a CP in SEL.

If you're a CFI you can instruct and provide endorsements with your 0.2 hour experience.

 

[Albany Tom]

I'm going to go with tailwheel is easier because I can do it and I'm not all that smart. Plus, I'm more comfortable with something with the glide angle of a sewing machine (Piper products) vs something where I actually have to plan ahead on what I need to do. (I think they call that energy management?)

Also, you guys are tossing around a lot of metrics on what determines what is easier. I'm going to suggest a different one - which one is easier to rent?

 

[Lindberg]

I got into gliders after a couple of thousand hrs in those and there was one new thing. That is, you are going the fastest ever in a glider when landing. And there will always be a number of those 16 yr old, recently soloed pilots watching and cruelly critiquing your landing. Raise the nose a millimeter in what they call a flare and they will call you on it. On the other hand, no one says "Boo" when I do a full stall landing in a Skyhawk.

I have barely any time compared to most here, but I've never heard of landing a glider faster than you fly it or without flaring. I wonder who is teaching that. I always try to land with minimum energy remaining.

 

[Pinecone]

A number of gliders are landed fairly flat due to not wanting the tail to hit first. It has been a while since I have flown one, but typically I would set an attitude and let it settle on as the speed bleeds off, or use the spoilers for a spot touchdown.

 

[RyanShort1]

I don’t really understand why tailwheel flying is considered black magic. In fact, I’ve been told by an instructor that if you have never flown at all, you will solo in about the same amount of time in a tailwheel airplane as you would in a tricycle.

I agree. I've soloed people in Cubs before, and would do it again. I will say that in general, I think it's much easier to start a younger person off in conventional gear. So I'd hope that a 16-20-something would solo in 8-12 hours and I wouldn't be surprised for an older person to take 15-20 just watching trends in how long it takes people to "get it." The hard part is that so many insurance policies for tailwheel aircraft are dual-only, and solo insurance is SOOO expensive.

 

[dbahn]

It occurs to me that one difference between gliders and powered tailwheel aircraft is the location of the CG with respect to the landing gear (not the wing). When we load a glider and put the passenger in the front seat, a crew member pushes on the nose and when the passenger gets in it stays there and adding the rear seated pilot may or may not then raise the nose. In something like the Cub, even with a heavy passenger loaded up front with full fuel in the forward mounted tank, it still sits on the tail, meaning the aft seated pilot and any baggage (or other passengers in larger TW planes) just adds to a further aft CG with respect to the landing gear. So what I'm suggesting is that with respect to the landing gear, tailwheel aircraft have a more significant aft loading that is the basis for ground looping. We associate CG location on both aircraft with respect to the wing, but with respect to ground stability on rollout the wing has less to do with it and the loading with respect to the main wheels (the pivot point about which rotation occurs) are the critical factor.

If' what I'm suggesting is true (and I don't know that it is in every case) then it would certainly suggest that the hazard of ground looping is considerably higher in the tailwheel airplane than it is in a glider. The only ground loops in a glider that I'm aware of have to do with catching a wing, but in an airplane catching a wing almost always occurs as a result of the ground loop, not as the cause. The basic steps in approach and landing in gliders and aircraft are not so radically different that one is more "difficult" than the other, but IMHO complete control in the rollout is an important part of every landing in either one.

I put zero stock in any claim that just because someone has thousands of landings in one or the other without an accident it somehow means that it's easier. It's more about risk management than ease of technique. I've never had a mid-air collision but consider assurance of not EVER having one to be one of the most challenging tasks in aviation.

 

[Maxnr]

I have barely any time compared to most here, but I've never heard of landing a glider faster than you fly it or without flaring. I wonder who is teaching that. I always try to land with minimum energy remaining.

I know. I said that I put out my opinion and now I'm going to bed. I got my Glider rating when I was a military pilot in long term school. Forbidden to fly, but flight pay continued. I heard of the glider operation in nearby San Marcos and checked it out. Commercial glider pilots had instructor privileges in the 70's. Couple of tows and a check ride, got my Comm G ticket.
Several NASA employees kept European sailplanes there. The flight school used Schweitzers. The 1-26 single seater was my favorite.
Some notes in my glider log refreshed my memory:
Stall speed: 28 mph. Best L/D (lift drag) 48 mph. It's the speed you use going to the next thermal. Add the head wind if any. Example: 15 mph head wind plus 48 mph best L/D equals 63 mph. No, you don't subtract tailwinds.
Minimum sink speed is 38 MPH. It's the speed that you use circling in the thermal. Add speed for increased angle of bank. Example: 60 deg bank/2G = 45mph.
Landing speed= 50 mph. most pilots pull the spoiler control halfway back. It can be used like a throttle. Pull back more to go down. push it fwd to stretch the glide more. Full spoiler will put you on the ground when in ground effect. No flare. Pull back more and the wheel brake is applied.
I hope this helps.

 

[iamtheari]

Add the head wind if any. Example: 15 mph head wind plus 48 mph best L/D equals 63 mph. No, you don't subtract tailwinds.

I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is it a rule of thumb or is there some math behind it?

 

[Lindberg]

I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is it a rule of thumb or is there some math behind it?

There's math, and the precise numbers are different for each glider. But the rule of thumb is generally given as add half of a headwind, and slow to min sink in a strong tailwind.

 

[RyanShort1]

And that is why when you are in a stiff headwind, in an engine out situation, you might actually want to go just a tad faster than best glide if you are trying to make a field into the wind... glider polars are fascinating and informative.

 

[Maxnr]

Excellent info. And just because I posted that gliders land faster than cruise.

 

[Flyhound]

Gliders typically land on well groomed fields and those don't present any hazards beyond what the weather throws at you. A lot of tailwheel aircraft are used for off-airport adventures and that is a lot more challenging due to possibly very rough and uneven landing surfaces. When the weather and the landing surface are perfect, landing is a piece of cake in any aircraft configuration (powered, glider, trike, tailwheel or monowheel). When the weather offers challenges (i.e. strong cross winds) both tailwheels and low winged gliders on monowheels can be a bugger to get on the ground without ground looping. Most glider operations are local, on groomed fields and in favorable weather conditions. A lot of tailwheel aircraft operate on cross country flights with uncertain destination weather and often with poor landing surface conditions. The answer to your question involves a lot more attributes than just where the landing gear are located and how they are configured.

 

[pmanton]

I soloed in 54. All we had were "Conventional gear" aircraft. Even a 16 year old with 8 hours could land one. But then they started calling them "Tail Draggers" and they became suddenly difficult to land.

 

[Maxnr]

Tailwheel gliders? Barnstormers has a Sonex Xenos 2 seat t.w. motor glider posted at this time.

 

[dbahn]

Many gliders are "tailwheel" when empty and sitting on the ground, but some will shift to the nosewheel when loaded (e.g. Schweizer 233). I mentioned earlier that while we reference CG for loading calculations it's with respect to the center of lift on the wing. When we talk about CG location with respect to ground loops it's relative to the main wheel/s, and I believe the CG is generally located very close to that in most gliders. Many gliders have non-castering tailwheels, which can also add some degree of stability on the rollout, although with the CG nearly over the main gear it's not difficult to do most of the rollout "balanced" on the main gear.

 

[FormerHangie]

Many gliders are "tailwheel" when empty and sitting on the ground, but some will shift to the nosewheel when loaded (e.g. Schweizer 233). I mentioned earlier that while we reference CG for loading calculations it's with respect to the center of lift on the wing. When we talk about CG location with respect to ground loops it's relative to the main wheel/s, and I believe the CG is generally located very close to that in most gliders. Many gliders have non-castering tailwheels, which can also add some degree of stability on the rollout, although with the CG nearly over the main gear it's not difficult to do most of the rollout "balanced" on the main gear.

Nosewheel?

 

[dbahn]

I'm using tailwheel and tail skid interchangeably, same with nosewheel and nose skid. But here's a 2-33 as it rests, with the CG forward of the main gear. It CAN be ground looped, but so can a tricycle gear airplane . . .

 

[Ghery]

I'm the wrong person to ask, as I have landed neither, but my casual observation is that in one you get multiple tries, and the other you don't.

I've got you beat, I've got 1 landing in a glider (none in taildraggers). I agree with your point, however. BTW, my one landing in a glider was after a flight in the UK, with a UK instructor. So my logbook has 0.4 hours of dual received. Proof in the picture below. BTW, the guy in back was the instructor and was in charge of the symposium in York, England that we played hooky from to go flying in 2011.

 

[FormerHangie]

I'm using tailwheel and tail skid interchangeably, same with nosewheel and nose skid. But here's a 2-33 as it rests, with the CG forward of the main gear. It CAN be ground looped, but so can a tricycle gear airplane . . .

View attachment 126027

I pulled out my logbook, I have six flights in Schweitzers 2-33 and 2-22. IIRC it was not difficult to land, learning to land the Grumman AA-1s i trained in was much more difficult. With the glider, you just fly along close to the ground until you touch down, then put on the brake. The trainers are big and kind of sluggish, but very forgiving. You also got very familiar with the rudder pedals, but I think that is true of almost all low speed aircraft.

I might add that the reason that the glider in the above picture is sitting on its nose skid is that there is someone in the pilot's seat. After you get out, you want to let the tail down slowly, with no one aboard, the CG is aft of the main wheel.

 

[Jeremy S]

I did a TW endorsement about a year ago, with around 130 hours at the time. Just did a Commercial Glider check ride this past weekend with about a total of 230 hours. It took me ~10 hours each. They were similar levels of challenge, for different reasons. Since you asked specifically about landing, I found gliders to be slightly easier to figure out, but with nearly double the experience between the two, it could be more of different level of skill going in.

Energy Management was harder to understand in the glider, knowing when I need to kill extra altitude, and when I need to save it was the biggest factor, landing was the easyiest part. TW was the exact opposite, Pattern was easy, getting it settled to the runway tracking centerline and straight was the harder par.

Both made me a significantly better pilot overall though.

 

[dbahn]

I might add that the reason that the glider in the above picture is sitting on its nose skid is that there is someone in the pilot's seat. After you get out, you want to let the tail down slowly, with no one aboard, the CG is aft of the main wheel.

In the 2-33 it depends on the relative weight of the occupants. It can sit on the tail OR on the nose with two passengers loaded within the normal W&B envelope.