Warbird Information Exchange

Here ya go Bill
The power of copy and paste

What are the factors of each type? Is one best? Is it pilot or airplane or runway?

Wheels landings: You fly nose mostly level, with a little power until the mains touch, then push slightly forward on the stick to hold the plane down. Pros are good response from the controls because with the tail up in the slipstream there is air to "bite". You are less likely to stall and drop a wing or hit a tip. Also you can see over the nose on short final, and the first part of rollout. Many pilots that fly modern planes like jets are comfortable with this method. It can be used with partial flaps in a crosswind or gusty conditions. Lee and Stallion 51 have been successful for years teaching a form of wheel landings. There's lot's of pilots who can land a Spit or 51, even some who can land a 109, but to sit in the back of a dual 51 with all types takes a lot more.

Con: It is easy to come in too fast in a wheel landing, to use this type as a crutch to substitute for airspeed control. I recall one year landing at Boscobel and I was 8 knots fast and used a lot of runway despite as good touchdown. I watched lots of Mustangs come in fast and have to screech on the brakes at the end. I'd give my landing an 8 at best, but I was judged best for the fighters. The ex AAF T-6 instructor got best overall and he regularly makes 3pts. Lot's of 51 guys have gone to stronger P-63 type brakes. I agree with Lee that if you need more brakes it is likely the landing is too fast. You can use up a lot of runway by coming on too fast , and it seems an easy habit to get into if you are nervous about not seeing over the nose. You are more dependant on big flaps to slow you down when you keep more power on. With some planes there is very little prop clearance when level and easy to hit a blade, and the nose may dip if you don't have back pressure on touchdown.

3 point landings(full stall). By 3 point we mean touching on all 3 wheels at the same time, that is a full stall an inch above the runway so it sits on all 3 tires at once, nose high and tail down. This is my normal landing in a Spitfire or Cub or T-6. This is how I learned as a low time pilot and it has worked for me. If I was flying a 51, I'd do it the way the owner wanted, but a Spitfire is designed for 3pt. The RAF knows thing or two about flying tailwheel airplanes, they even had a tailwheel on the first fighter jets. Their general Pilot Manual, not type specific, advises to make " A FULLY HELD OFF LANDING UNLESS THE PILOT IS UNSURE WHERE THE GROUND IS". Thy don't elaborate on how you know you are unsure before you touch down, but I'd guess that means if it is gusty or dark. The advantages to full stall 3 pt is if done right, a Spit or T-6 is through flying and will use less runwway length and not be dependent on brakes. Lack of rudder and elevator control at approach speed, even at 75 knots is NOT a problem in a Merlin Spitfire, if anything one may find the elevator over responsive, so you don't need to be on the ground with the tail up and waving in the breeze. At 80 over the fence there is enough margin above stall. And one can use the brakes better in a Spit with the tail down, less likely to hit a prop.

Cons, of course you can't see over the nose in many tailwheel fighters when 3 point. Planes like T-6, Mustang have large very effective flaps so you can approach slightly nose down and still see the runway as you near, just before you flare. A Spitfire is much less so, probably as is a Corsair or Bearcat.. Training time in the back seat of a T-6 is a good way to prepare for this lack of forward view. A Spitfire tailwheel just follows, it does not lock or steer. When it is on the ground 3pt on rollout it does provide more stability rather than with the tail up and wheel off the ground. The thing to avoid in a 3 pt landing is stalling so high in th air that you drop in too far and lose control or cause damage.
_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

My Dad, who learned to fly in a T-Craft in '41 and flew P-40's and B-17's said they were never taught wheel landings in WW2. Since then, though, I think folks have learned that depending on the airplane, wheelies have their place. I've always liked a slightly tail low wheel landing, feeling for the ground, trying to get that greaser. Sometimes, if it feels like I've floated a second too long, I'll 'cheat' and roll in just enough aileron to find the ground, and then stick the other side.
If you want to get a big arguement started, get a bunch of J-3/Champ/Luscombe guys in the hangar and start talking 3-point vs wheelies. It can get heated. Kind of like Hoover vs Yeager; painted vs polished; round vs inline...... in other words, like everything else we talk about here

Steve G

Never taught wheelies? Fascinating......

I posted this a recently in response to a question on the Bellanca-Champion Forum about wheel landings in Citabrias but it applies to most conventional gear aircraft.
_____________________________________________________________

I learned to fly in a Cub, spent my first 2500 hours in the rear seat of a Champ instructing, this in the days that tailwheel was known as conventional gear and no sign off was required because tri-cycle gear was the exception. I fly my 7GCAA in winds that have the training wheels parked and only do wheel landings in calm winds on long smooth runways, most of us from that era are confused by the current fascination with wheel landings. Not sure why one would want to add difficulty to landing in gusty conditions by attempting a landing that was more difficult in calm conditions. I have never needed extra speed for more control effectivness at touchdown because I have never ran out of control authority, however I am always happy that I am touching down at minimum speed and stopping quickly rather that riding a 1750lb weathervane down the runway.....................

When wheel landings are discussed online no acknowledgement is made that there are so many variations of wheel landing, anything from the tailwheel 1" above the runway to a level attitude, that the discussions are of little value. At our flight school (seven Champs, one Cub) we never taught wheel landings............and we never had a groundloop or prop strike. In my flight training library, that begins with 1932 CAA Manuals and includes WWII era USAAF and USN Manuals, the first reference to wheel landings is a 1965 FAA Flight Training Handbook. My theory is that new hire training wheel experienced FAA Inspectors were having trouble with them during their Oke City checkout and decided they would be required. The tailwheel endorsement requires "Normal", "Wheel", and "Cross-wind" landings.............the message is that wheel landings aren't normal landings. And experience shows that more incidents occur during wheel landings than three-point landings, this is due to porpoising which can cause a prop strike or loss of directional control due to attempting to juggle too many things at once. In addition touching down at higher speed means more energy and a greater chance of groundloop, and more damage if one occurs.

Winds above 30-35 kts require caution while taxiing but aren't a big issue when making a three-point (actually two-point, one main and the tailwheel) touchdown. In gusty wind I get the plane in the attitude and play with it until I'm comfortable and chop the throttle and plant it, stick full aft on roll out to pin the tailwheel adding aileron rapidly as the speed bleeds off, the rollout distance is minimal. As an interesting exercise I suggest looking at aileron effectivness while parked on a windy day, both headed into the wind and downwind. And it must be noted that the spring geared aircraft ride stiffer and are much easier to taxi in windy conditions.

Tom-
_____________________________________________________________

As an addendum I find it interesting that so many modern pilots brag about wheeling the Cessna 170 while it is well documented that the factory test pilots quickly decided to three-point it, and that the Beech Handbook for the E18S strongly suggests three point landings in cross winds to reduce the chances of groundloop.

To keep the discussion more focused, I was dividing into two types, level on the wheels or full stall 3pt.

Of course there are degrees in between, and in fact a tail low almost 3 pt. landing, but not quite a stall, can be a good one too. I use it also.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

This is interesting. Almost 30 years ago, when my dad, a CFI in winter & cropduster the rest of the year checked me out in a Citabria, which was my first 'real' TW training, (we never really counted my back seat T-6 time as that was playing & at that time I likely wouldn't have flown it solo then anyway, especially since it wasn't ours), but prior to the little Citabria, all my time, about 125 hours, was 150s, 172s, 182s & a few other tri-gear types. I took to the 3 point landings like they were nothing (nothing compared to the back seat of the T-6 for sure), but what DID give me fits, were wheel landings! Dear ol' Dad worked with me & worked with me but I just couldn't get them. I was just hitting too hard. Of course, when he did dozens per day in an AgTruck, & on long strips, he did wheelies in the 'Truck, because it handled better, he made it look easy. One afternoon, it hit me, it just clicked & I started greasing it in on wheelies. I had heard from some other pilots who had flown bigger stuff, like DC-3s & Twin Beeches, that some of this stuff, "you just don't 3-point". I'm just surprised that wheelies are so 'new'.

Famvburg, like you I was under the impression that a wheel landing was prefered for the big stuff. I almost always see wheel landings in DC-3s. But I just met an old time airline pilot that said a 3 pt landing was the standard for airllines in DC-3s back then.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Ah ! That particular subject never gets old. Not so long ago there was a similar discussion on the Int'l 120-140 Assoc. forum.

The conclusion was: Do whatever works for you ! Some are more at ease with wheelies, some with 3 point.

As for myself, it depends on wind mostly. At my home base, as soon as I get below the tree line, there is no more wind and the runway being grass, three points are in order. Don't even need to use the brakes either.

Just love it.

Now, if the crappy weather can stop, I will go flying again !!! Can't wait...

By the way Bill, I don't want to hijack the thread but how are the repairs going on your bird ?

_________________
Michel C
Thousands of a/c pics at Passion-Aviation

I agree, do whatever works for you to be safe and comfortable.

I prefer a wheeled landing in a strong x-wind (well one wheel) and three pointers in nice conditions - but that's just me

_________________
Paul Filmer
skippyscage photography

To each his own...

I will intentionally wheel land when the aircraft is severely aft CG. I know that seems counter to physics but I don't like tailwheel first touchdowns.

My Stearman does easy wheelies but it's far more controllable in a 3-point.

In most aircraft I choose to 3-point, but will do whatever feels comfortable in the aircraft. I'm sure some types are easier to wheel land.

It does seem like all the P-51 pilots nowadays do wheel landings.

Tim

I've always preferred one pointers myself, especially in tailwheel aircraft.

a) The wheel that offers directional control is firmly planted on the ground first
b) The slower you touch down, the less time you spend landing (less time to crash)
c) The more slowly you are going when you touch down, the slower you can crash, i.e. crashes are bad, higher speed crashes are worse

I'm certainly no expert, but that's what has worked for me in slower stuff (up to and including a C-195).

I regularly fly an Austflight Drifter (drifteraircraft.com) which is a very light Experimental pusher taildragger, Citabria, and also an RV-8. I've got a smidge of time in a T-6, Christen Eagle, and Twin Beech. My initial tailwheel instruction came from a high-time USAF Skyraider vet and I pass on what he taught me. And, curiously, I asked him one day what techniques would I need to apply differently to fly an A-1 and besides the obvious power/torque, etc, his short answer was "the same techniques apply".

I'm just now finishing giving a tailwheel endorsement to a neighbor in the Drifter, which, by the way, like many taildraggers, looks tame in parking, but will eat your lunch if you allow it - so we've obvously been covering these topics ad naseum. The short answer - as you said - is it's the plane, the pilot, and the wind.

3 pointers - Geat and easy in so many airplanes, yet the RV-8 doesn't care for it. Aircraft desginers optimally build an airplane so that its 3 point attitude matches the deck angle of the stall at normal weights. For whatever reason, if I "hold it off" for a full stall landing, the RV-8 tailwheel will touch first and the mains will still be an uncomfortable 6"+ in the air - which makes for a firm landing when the wings stall out. I have since taught myself to physically land the airplane in the 3 point attitude and accept that I'm not yet stalled - which, in itself, can induce some problems. It also has some really springy gear ... need I say more?

Wheel landings - Good for gusty conditions. I would always stress "crosswinds" also, but a good friend, tailwheel CFI, and former U-2 pilot likes to point out that the wheelie doesn't increase your tolerance to crosswinds ... because you still need to fly the tail down and roll out as if you'd made a 3 pointer ... and if you don't have control authority to do that, then you don't need to be using that runway. I still feel like it allows me to handle a stiffer wind because the wheel landing reduces the time I'm exposed and vulnerable in that slow, nose-high attitude, but his point is well made. I know it's good for gusty winds because the additional speed reduces the resultant wind vector. And if it's a quartering vector, then it is reducing your groundspeed, and thus the energy your brakes must dissipate.

Here is the flip side: the Drifter, with its huge camber, is still generating a lot of lift until it is in a level or slightly tail-high attitude. As far as the touchdown goes - and the Drifter, which is very draggy, is a great tool to illustrate this - is that you need to "just about" level off on speed by reducing your sink rate to something close to zero by gently adding power to cut the sink - when the temptation is to pull the stick back - the last thing you want to be doing, as the next motion (at touchdown) is to bring the stick forward. Timing it this way is darn-near impossible and a set-up for a bounce and PIO.

In the RV I've been very pleased with this wheelie technique: slightly over-trim nose up so that you find yourself holding a small amount of forward pressure on final. Now, when you level off, you're naturally poised to continue with the forward stick pressure (on touchdown) necessary to keep 'er on the runway. The obvious Con is not being set up for a go around - you'll have to quickly re-trim to prevent over rotation.

I've taught my student wheelies and been very specific to say that the increased speed and flat, power-on approach is to build a habit pattern that will serve him well on a gusty day ... doing it on a light wind day for training is only a simulation. I've gone on to say that, once he does wheelies well, we will eventually slow 'em down and make them for fun -- tail-low as another poster mentioned.

Your points about prop clearance and bounce recovery are well-made. The answer - learn the quirks of the plane you fly and fly it appropriately - and for many of us who fly everything from light GA to warbirds to airliners know the brain-shifts required to go from one cockpit to the next.

Great topic for discussion - and no, no one will ever agree. What I don't care for is when I hear someone who "doesn't like this or that maneuver" and, as a result, doesn't teach it. A well-rounded pilot has all possible tools in his/her toolkit and uses each when/if it's deemed appropriate.

As long as you don't scratch any paint, there are many ways to skin this cat. I'll let the other experts address the quirks of the F8F, P-51, T-6, A-1, etc ....

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

In the Hawker we always go for landing on the mains and hold the nose off even when we go into lift dump. In my training days, my instructor taught us to land on the mains. When I received my tailwheel which was in a Cessna 140, I was taught to 3pt it. As Michael can tell you, in a Cessna 140, full stalls to a 3pt landings are the norm. My first landing in my C-140 was a wheelie and I almost didn't make it to the 8 sec bell. With the steel spring gear you have to 3pt it. I have flown J-3's, Chiefs, Champs, 8KCAB's, T-6 and all of 3 hour in a Mustang and wheelie's are a norm in those as well.

Lynn

Ken said: A well-rounded pilot has all possible tools in his/her toolkit and uses each when/if it's deemed appropriate.

And I am saying amen to that !!!

Yes Lynn is right. Ask my instructor what it feels like when a student converts from the lazy 172 !!! Bounce I did and I can testify to the spring gear of the 140 being, well... springy !!!

Now, 400 hours later I manage to produce decent landings from time to time but I still bounce one here and there. Mostly when there are people watching, of course !

Flying is a never ending learning opportunity... I just love it ! Now, if the rain could stop long enough today, I am about due to get up there and drill holes in those clouds !!! Yup, they are low enough

_________________
Michel C
Thousands of a/c pics at Passion-Aviation