Conventional gear question - 3 point vs. wheel landings

[Fearless Tower]

I'm wondering if those with alot of tailwheel experience can help my mind grasp this concept.

While I was getting my tailwheel endorsement in a C170, my instructor emphasized wheel landings over 3 point landings. From the instruction I received and from what I have read here and there about conventional gear planes, it seems that wheel landings give you better control over the aircraft, less chance of ground looping and allow for shorter landing distance.

So, my question is...what, if any, advantages are there in performing 3 point landings or situations where 3 point landings would be preferred?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Short Field....

3 pt landings are done at slower speeds. It is all about performance and the shorter distance one can land the better... especially on short strips.

Often tailwheel instructors will lead students towards wheel landings because of the increased "stability and control". It is a dis-service. 3 pt. landings are the graceful way to land a tailwheel airplane and the best performance. It is the default method for me.

Wheel landings are useful during strong or better yet, gusty crosswinds. It also depends on the aircraft. When flying the DC3 we always did wheel landings....

Taming the Taildragger and the Complete Tailwheel Pilot are great references.

 

[con-pilot]

I tried once, and only once to land the DC-3 three point. Never even thought about it again. The other two large conventional aircraft I had the great fortune to fly for a living as a co-pilot was the Howard 350 and the Learstar II, both of those aircraft you only made wheel landings in as well.

Now for light aircraft I flew the J-3, L-5, Cessna 180/185, Piper Pawnee and in all of those I would make 3 point landings if the wind was not too bad. I also flew the DHC-3 Beaver and I usually made wheel landings in that airplane.

 

[Waldom]

Wheel landings have their uses and are an important tool to have in your repertoire, but to think of them as always the safer way to land a conventional gear aircraft is patently wrong. As a general statement, the slower the landing speed, the safer the landing, provided the aircraft is in control. A checkout in a Cessna 170 by a competent instructor will have left you quite comfortable performing full stall, three-point landings in this aircraft.

In gusty conditions [translated wind shear anticipated], wheel landings provide an extra margin above the stall on final approach and touch-down. The statement "wheel landings give you better control" in this situation is a bit misleading. They do offer extra protection up to the point of touch-down but do nothing at all for you for the rest of the roll-out.

The idea that wheel landings give better control in a cross-wind is not supported by fact; the tail has to come down sometime whether the airplane is landed three-point or on the main wheels. The rudder on a 170 in particular is effective well below the stall speed. Granted the large vertical fin on the airplane provides a strong weather-vaning tendancy and you will need downwind brake to maintain directional control in a strong crosswind. This is true regardless of the type of landing.

Regarding short-field landings, in compliance with the laws of physics, a full-stall landing will always result in the shortest landing run. There is one qualifier here, though. With a three-point landing, some distance prior to the actual landing run will be used during the flair and touch-down. Even if you have judged this perfectly and are about to land in a full stall at the exact spot you intended, a slight wind gust can make you "float" past your your spot. If the physical landing area is very short, some pilots will fly their approach just a bit above a stall and "pin it on" in a tail-low wheel landing in the first few feet of the availiable landing area to avoid waiting for the airplane to stall over it. They trade off a few knots worth of extra inertia for precision at the touch-down point. Note that this applies to extremely short landing areas (ie. gravel bars in the river) and not the runways that the majority of us use. [My apologies...and respect...to any bush pilots reading this.]

There are a few airplanes out there that are just "happier" wheel landing, but this speaks to the physical limits of the flight controls. A Beech 18 is a good example of this. As the airplane approaches a stall angle of attack in the landing configuration, the very broad chord of the center-section and the extended flaps aerodynamically blanks out the horizontal tail. Power off, you run out of elevator authority and the horizontal stabilizer stalls before the wing does causing the nose to pitch down. The only way to make a smooth three-point landing in the airplane is with power on to keep airflow over the tail. Incidentally, the DC-3 makes beautiful three-point landings although most folks' standard operating procedure, going back to the airlines in the 1930s, is to wheel land them. The only exception is when the cabin is empty and consequently the c.g. is well forward. In that case a whisker of power is needed for extra elevator authority.

To summarize, wheel landings are sometimes the best technique in some situations but not all of them. In my subjective opinion, wheel landings in light airplanes in most conditions are an inelegant choice.

 

[VNugget]

Everybody comes from a different background, and prefer one type of landing over the other. Me personally, I come from a 3-point-centric lineage, and feel more comfortable with them. On a nice smooth day I might do some wheel landings to stay in practice, but when the sock starts blowing all over the place I'm reverting to my trusty 3 point. As soon as the plane is down, I have solid steering via the tailwheel, and don't have to ride the rudder around hoping that the tail doesn't get blown hard enough to exceed the rudder authority, especially when it's coming down and getting blanked out by the fuselage. (and I have nearly wiped out from that.) If at any point rudder authority isn't enough for directional control, it's no big deal as I'm still in the air and I can go around. I simply do not see the practical benefits of a wheel landing (at least where you have enough runway to breathe, in the small trainers I've flown).

 

[TrafficInSight]

Everybody comes from a different background, and prefer one type of landing over the other. Me personally, I come from a 3-point-centric lineage, and feel more comfortable with them. On a nice smooth day I might do some wheel landings to stay in practice, but when the sock starts blowing all over the place I'm reverting to my trusty 3 point. As soon as the plane is down, I have solid steering via the tailwheel, and don't have to ride the rudder around hoping that the tail doesn't get blown hard enough to exceed the rudder authority, especially when it's coming down and getting blanked out by the fuselage. (and I have nearly wiped out from that.) If at any point rudder authority isn't enough for directional control, it's no big deal as I'm still in the air and I can go around. I simply do not see the practical benefits of a wheel landing (at least where you have enough runway to breathe, in the small trainers I've flown).

I, too, always try to land on the wheels

 

[VNugget]

I, too, always try to land on the wheels

Do, or do not. There is no try.

 

[avbug]

How you land really depends on you, the conditions, the landing surface, and the airplane. Some airplanes really prefer one or the other. Generally your visibility is better with a wheel landing, but visiblity isn't that critical anyway; you can see out the side. 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.

The tailwheel airplane I presently fly, I like to land on the mains, and then retract the flaps as soon as the mains are on. The tailwheel settles, and then I can come over into reverse. I've seen others do it while the tail is in the air, and I do disagree with that practice. This airplane is somewhat short coupled, and liked landing two point. A similiar type which is a little longer and has spring gear prefers three point; two point in the similiar one is more difficult.

If you're flying an airplane such as a trainer (eg cub, scout etc) that lends itself equally well to both, then practice wheel and three point landings...an practice them until you can do them full stall. Alternating between then isn't always advised with each airplane; find what works best for you, and for your airplane and then fly it accordingly.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The tailwheel airplane I presently fly, I like to land on the mains, and then retract the flaps as soon as the mains are on.

You change configuration during the roll out?

 

[svcta]

You change configuration during the roll out?

I used to do this in the super cubs all the time. I wouldn't suggest it to newbies, but it does help settle the airplane down if it's a little bouncy and helps for the shortest of landings. Granted, in the PA 18 it makes for a short, but noticeable steer toward the barn, but nothing "lethal".

Avbug sort of touched on it with the idea that you're vulnerable as the tail comes down and speed is bleeding off. This is right on and I feel you can take the one singular rule of tailwheeling from this concept: Be somewhere, but never in between.

I'll explain. People always get in to trouble in conventional gear a/c when they've gotten to the point that they're in between. Maybe they were shooting for a 3 pointer and got the mains first. There they are in a wheel-landing attitude(tail up) but without the speed to keep the controls effective. This is in between. You cannot have the full control of the aircraft available during either type of landing(there are more than two, by the way). Ditto for a wheeler that didn't get pinned on the mains, or maybe the tail was held up too long, etc.

Make sure that the airplane is WHERE YOU WANT IT. And that it is going to be where you want it in a few seconds. Getting stuck in between because you don't have positive control during the landing will end you up with a scuffed wingtip or minus one wheel.

Regarding my choice of what kind of landing to make. I see all sides of this argument. Everyone is right about this being preferential in most cases. 3 point on grass, almost every time. And it is the best way to get stopped in a hurry. Even if you float little ways your speed at touchdown is so low you can stop in a hurry. When I was new at it I chose wheelers more often on pavement. As I gained experience I got comfy with 3 pointers on hard surfaces and now it's my default landing for almost every type I regularly fly. I generally try to avoid wheelers in cessnas. Trading energy with that spring steel gear is just a lot of work if your speed control and technique isn't right on. But you should still practice them from time to time. If it's really blowing I'll have to shift back to wheel landings, though. Reduce the flap setting(if you've got them) and come in with more speed for better control effectiveness. Carry this speed in to your touch down and use it to keep your drift down. Now here's where the "in between" thing comes in: Get the tail on the ground before you get too slow. This will maintain suitable rudder authority throughout the transition from tail-up to tail-down. It can be done, practice it before you need it in real life.

One last point. People generally make it out to be as if one of these kinds of landings(3-point or wheeler) will protect you from gusts and bounces and wings lifting and all of the things we counteract during our landings. This is just not true. No matter which landing you make you are very likely to get a little weird from time to time if it's windy. The whole trick to tail-wheel flying is developing the skills that allow you to handle these things and make it appear as if they were never a consideration. But we all know they always are.

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

 

[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.