Conventional gear question - 3 point vs. wheel landings

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Now that the original posters question(s) have been answered....

I used to do this in the super cubs all the time.

............I'll explain.

Kinda like an operator induced ground lift dump......but I wasn't looking to get schooled.... thanks though!

Not sure on the validaty on changing configuration on any airplane during take off or roll out..... What does the POH say? What would the FAA say afterwards...?

But the PIC is the man!

I could go on for an hour. But I'll make myself stop for everybody's sake.

Thanks! :beer:

 

[nosehair]

Any time you're in transition to tailwheel down, be it landing three point as you slow to the stall, or settling the tail after a wheel landing, you're vulnerable. That's open to crosswind, or just getting yourself crossways. The time between when your rudder loses effectiveness and your tailwheel is giving you steering is the time when you're most open to something going wrong, and that can happen regardles of which kind of landing you do.

Avbug points to the precise problem and consideration when deciding about the wheel landings.

I find more control of the moment when I attempt to bring the tail down in strong, gusty, crosswinds.

Most of the time, 3 pointers are the overall best, but in strong gusty crosswinds, the moment of floating just above a stall in a 3 point attitude makes me more vulnerable than when I am touching down the mains with power over the rudder/elevator, and timing the moment of poweroff/taildown movement when the wind is cooperating instead of fighting me.

The idea is to be very proficient in both methods so that you are better trained to handle any moment of surprise in wind conditions at the moment of touchdown. A blast of power works wonders.

 

[svcta]

Now that the original posters question(s)

Not sure on the validaty on changing configuration on any airplane during take off or roll out..... What does the POH say? What would the FAA say afterwards...?

Oh, you're one of those.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'll start with the end, and save anybody that wants it the trouble of reading the WHOLE thing

Thanks! :beer:

My basic philosophy is that you should be equally proficient and comfortable with both types of landings in light taildraggers. Whichever you prefer, there will be times when you find that the other is more appropriate, and when it is, you NEED to be able to do it well.

Now, on to the "optional reading" part...

My personal preference is for wheel landings. First, the tailwheel is generally the weak link in the landing gear. Personally, I've had every bolt on a tailwheel break at some time or other (I replace them all on my Maule every 5 years).

I've had to land without a tailwheel 3 times (hence my belief that it's the weak link in the landing gear). If you're going to do a bouncy, not-so-proficient wheel landing under these circumstances, you're probably better off to 3 point it and drag the tail, rather than give it several sharp hits on the ground, IMO. You would, as I stated above, NEED to be able to do a good wheel landing here.

The last tailwheel I had to buy (if any of you guys have a farm in mid-Kansas and see a Scott 3200 laying on the ground, it's probably mine) cost $850. They've gone up since then. I've never had to buy a main gear leg, and the only problems I know of there were due to improper maintenance.

I can land shorter in a wheel landing than I can with a 3-pointer in my Maule...just because it's a wheel landing, doesn't mean it has to be FAST. I do 'em tail-low, and when I raise the tail, I can get better braking action on my grass strip (translated: the wheels don't lock up and skid when I apply the slightest amount of brakes like they do 3-point). Obviously, care needs to be taken, but it can be done safely.

I can land shorter over an obstacle in a wheel landing than I can 3-point in my Maule...I use a high sink rate, which takes a fair amount of energy to arrest. Energy is either speed or power, and I prefer not to require large amounts of instantaneous power to avoid a hard impact. To make a 3-point landing, the extra speed results in extended float, and proper speed results in a shallower descent angle past the obstacle. Either of which has me touching down beyond where I get stopped with the wheel-landing.

Having said all that, there are times, circumstances, and airplanes for which a 3-pointer is simply RIGHT. It looks good, it feels good, it is good. So, back to the original statement...be proficient and comfortable with both.

Fly safe!

David

 

[avbug]

You change configuration during the roll out?

Yes, absolutely.

Often on the takeoff roll, too.

 

[Waldom]

Interesting thread. Too bad there is not a black and white answer to the original poster's question. I agree with the consensus that the type of landing is dictated by the aircraft type/ wind conditions/ landing surface/ personal proficiency.

I do have two other points to ponder.

Have the type of landing you intend clear in your mind before beginning your approach. Changing your mind in the flair rarely provides good results.

Some conventional-gear aircraft are designed with the main landing gear too short to do full stall landings. By this I mean that the airplane attitude in an unaccelerated stall leaves the main wheels a foot in the air when the tailwheel contacts the runway and provides an ungraceful "flop" onto the main gear. You can make smooth three-point landings in these airplanes but by definition they are not full-stall landings; they are wheel landings in which the tailwheel happens to contact the ground at the same time as the mains. A Champion Citabria is an example of this type. When a version [the Scout] aimed toward the utility/ bush flying market was designed, Champion put taller main landing gear legs on the airplane to facilitate full-stall landings. This is not a problem on the Cessna 170 though.

So how about it, Fearless T.? Did we help or completely confuse the issue?

 

[svcta]

I can land shorter in a wheel landing than I can with a 3-pointer in my Maule...just because it's a wheel landing, doesn't mean it has to be FAST. I do 'em tail-low, and when I raise the tail, I can get better braking action on my grass strip (translated: the wheels don't lock up and skid when I apply the slightest amount of brakes like they do 3-point). Obviously, care needs to be taken, but it can be done safely.

I can land shorter over an obstacle in a wheel landing than I can 3-point in my Maule...I use a high sink rate, which takes a fair amount of energy to arrest. Energy is either speed or power, and I prefer not to require large amounts of instantaneous power to avoid a hard impact. To make a 3-point landing, the extra speed results in extended float, and proper speed results in a shallower descent angle past the obstacle. Either of which has me touching down beyond where I get stopped with the wheel-landing.

It's fun and interesting to get everyone's different takes on this. In a light a/c(PA-18, J-3, Husky, etc)I find a good ole slip over an obstacle(some more aggressive than others) allows me to manage the energy developed from getting down past the trees(or power lines, barns, etc). Hold it right up to the flare and you can really get it on and stopped. In the Super Cubs if you get the flaps up either right as you touch down or even just before you'll get great braking action, too, for really really min. landing distance.

And, yes, whoever you are(not you, Maule), I'm talking about a configuration change.

 

[Waldom]

I think Rez. O's concern about a configuration change on roll-out has to do with standard F.A.A. recommendations to their inspectors and designated examiners. They frown on config. changes at this time due to an accident history of inadvertant landing gear retractions while pilot's eyes are "outside" of the cockpit. That's kind of hard to do in a Cessna 170. I agree that there are situations where retracting the flaps on touchdown is appropriate.

There is one caution, though. When placing the flap handle to the up position on the 170, your forward view is mometarily interupted because you have to bend over to get the lever nearly to the floor. When you do this during roll-out, that view through the windshield may be a different one than you started with when you come back up.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I think Rez. O's concern about a configuration change on roll-out has to do with standard F.A.A. recommendations to their inspectors and designated examiners. They frown on config. changes at this time due to an accident history of inadvertant landing gear retractions while pilot's eyes are "outside" of the cockpit. That's kind of hard to do in a Cessna 170. I agree that there are situations where retracting the flaps on touchdown is appropriate.

There is one caution, though. When placing the flap handle to the up position on the 170, your forward view is mometarily interupted because you have to bend over to get the lever nearly to the floor. When you do this during roll-out, that view through the windshield may be a different one than you started with when you come back up.

That is correct...... even the pro's can get distracted or "reach" for a handle and not find it only to look down for a moment..... I don't know... if you have to make config changes while going 40 +/- knots down a runway do you really need to be operating off of that strip? I've never flown in AK so maybe you do....

When flying jumpers in a C182 the "trick" was to select the second notch of flaps at rotation to give the aircraft sudden lift.... however, as a simpleton pilot it seems that no energy is gained...only traded....

I see the other gents point in raising the flaps to move lift and weight off of the wings and onto the wheels and brakes.... maybe in really short fields but I always thought that the key to max perf landings was airspeed control and brakes.... Finally... that is why I said the PIC is the man... do whatever you want, just ensure you can explain it the Feds....

Another word of caution is suggesting personal techinque to a new tailwheel pilot... As he gains experience I am not sure he needs ideas of fumbling around for levers as he is learning to master tailwheel landings...

 

[A Squared]

I can land shorter in a wheel landing than I can with a 3-pointer in my Maule...just because it's a wheel landing, doesn't mean it has to be FAST. I do 'em tail-low, and when I raise the tail, I can get better braking action on my grass strip (translated: the wheels don't lock up and skid when I apply the slightest amount of brakes like they do 3-point). Obviously, care needs to be taken, but it can be done safely.

A great deal of truth here. Contrary to popular beleif, a wheel landing is not necessarily a fast landing. It seem often that they are taught and executed at just slightly under cruise airspeed. However, like David says, you can do a wheel landing at juist slightly above stall speed, and if you immediatly transition to a tail high attitude, you have much, much more braking effectiveness than in the first part of a 3 point rollout. THe braking effectiveness is of course directly proportional to the amount of weight on the mains. If you roll-out in 3 point attitude, you give up a great deal of this effectivness. Sure, you're below flying speed, but you still have the wing out there, at an angle of attack close to CL max, and it's still going through the air at nearly enough speed to generate lift equal to the weight of the airplane, say 80 % that means that you have about 20% braking effectiveness. Sure, you can dump your flaps, that helps, maybe adds another 10%, And certainly it gets better as you slow down. Once you lose 30% of your stall speed, you are all the way up to 50% of braking effectiveness. Compare that to rolling the tail up until the wing is in a neutral angle of attack. You now have 100% (or very close) braking effectiveness as soon as the tail is up, without dumping your flaps.

The other advatange to this is it gets your horizontal stab up our to the way of the rocks you will kick up. (You didn't think a strip short enough to require max performance techniques would be paved, did you?)


I've seen some breathtakingly short landings by Super Cub pilots who use this method skilfully.

Now this technique has some obvious pitfalls and should be practiced thouroughly before being used agressively in a "have-to" situation, but that could be said about *any* max performance technique in an airplane.


Just to stir the pot here, a little, David, how do you feel about Maule's strong reccomendation against wheel landings?

Some conventional-gear aircraft are designed with the main landing gear too short to do full stall landings. By this I mean that the airplane attitude in an unaccelerated stall leaves the main wheels a foot in the air when the tailwheel contacts the runway and provides an ungraceful "flop" onto the main gear. You can make smooth three-point landings in these airplanes but by definition they are not full-stall landings; they are wheel landings in which the tailwheel happens to contact the ground at the same time as the mains. A Champion Citabria is an example of this type.

Yep, I can attest to this, being a Citabria owner. If you land the airplane at minimum speed, you *will* hit taiwheel first, and "flop" is an excellent description of what happens next. True 3 point landings are a little faster than full stall.