Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:10 am
Many good points have been made on this thread. I was taught to fly on the Percival Provost 50 years ago and my instructor always had the tailwheel touch a fraction of a second before the main gear did. Even when I moved on to De Havilland Vampire trainers the necessity for keeping the tail low on touchdown (to avoid thumping down nose wheel first) was obvious. If it was overdone and the tail touched first (never heard of it happening) there was a block of hard rubber near the rear of the booms that would have offered some protection.
I am no longer an active pilot, but if I may offer an observation it is that todays pilots have a greater tendency to land fast than those of my generation. IMHO, of course!
I am no longer an active pilot, but if I may offer an observation it is that todays pilots have a greater tendency to land fast than those of my generation. IMHO, of course!
Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:34 am
I meant to add one point earlier - that we all look back to the way warbirds were flown when in service and very much value the words of wisdom of those veterans - but, the truth is that some of those pilots only had 200 hours of flight time and, in some cases, were rarely flying off of pavement. I listen intently to what they say, but temper their advice to fit my airplane and situation ...
Tailwheel
Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:15 am
I got real comfortable with wheel landings on the L-5 when I started, but after vigorous recommendation from many people, I got back to three pointing it. When I haven't flown in a while, the tendency is to want to wheel land it- I guess all that time in the C-150 and C-172 hasn't worn off, and I get the sight picture better on a wheel landing. But when I remember that it is okay to turn your head in the cockpit while in the middle of landing, and use your sight picture from peripheral vision, the three points are easier to do.
I really believe that people don't like to three point because of the lack of sight picture. The guy who built my L-5 says that you are going to wind up with the tail on the ground anyway, so why not begin there in a landing flair? One other thing that I encountered one day. I overheard two people, one of whom was Art Nalls of Harrier fame, talking about flying the Yak-3. It seems that the discussion was about how much shorter five knots less airspeed allowed the landing roll out to be, but how scary not having sight over the cowling was. In the discussion, it seems that five knots less airspeed and a three pointer cut almost a third of the landing roll-out distance.
I agree that having the wheel landing in your tool box is a good thing, but I also believe that it has become more common practice in time due to the overabundance of tricycle gear time people are compelled to fly. Since it is so easy to abuse a nosewheel to make bad landings look good, that is what is happening, and it translates over to an over-abundance of wheel landings in tailwheel aircraft.
Ken, was that old Skyraider pilot Tony Markl? Great guy... He is a true master of the tail wheel, a complete gentleman who helped my family out when we had a small emergency, and I recommend that everybody who is inclined to fly tailwheel should spend some time with him. I also really like how he does fabric work.
http://www.intercom.net/~markl/
I really believe that people don't like to three point because of the lack of sight picture. The guy who built my L-5 says that you are going to wind up with the tail on the ground anyway, so why not begin there in a landing flair? One other thing that I encountered one day. I overheard two people, one of whom was Art Nalls of Harrier fame, talking about flying the Yak-3. It seems that the discussion was about how much shorter five knots less airspeed allowed the landing roll out to be, but how scary not having sight over the cowling was. In the discussion, it seems that five knots less airspeed and a three pointer cut almost a third of the landing roll-out distance.
I agree that having the wheel landing in your tool box is a good thing, but I also believe that it has become more common practice in time due to the overabundance of tricycle gear time people are compelled to fly. Since it is so easy to abuse a nosewheel to make bad landings look good, that is what is happening, and it translates over to an over-abundance of wheel landings in tailwheel aircraft.
Ken, was that old Skyraider pilot Tony Markl? Great guy... He is a true master of the tail wheel, a complete gentleman who helped my family out when we had a small emergency, and I recommend that everybody who is inclined to fly tailwheel should spend some time with him. I also really like how he does fabric work.
http://www.intercom.net/~markl/
Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:05 am
In the USAAF world, fighters were usually flown from non-paved airfields. That may have a bearing on the type of landings. Plus the aircraft were 2000+ lbs. heavier with armour, guns, etc.
In the USN world, who cares...they just hook a wire & drop.
(Very nice discussion....love hearing about all the different experiences.)
Thx,
VL
In the USN world, who cares...they just hook a wire & drop.
(Very nice discussion....love hearing about all the different experiences.)
Thx,
VL
Vlado
Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:20 am
Vlado, as a long time P-51 guy, I and we would like to hear your input on this also. I am not much of a wheel lander, and I am low time in 51s, but I tried to give that side, both pro and con also.
Re: Tailwheel
Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:21 am
Forgotten Field wrote:Ken, was that old Skyraider pilot Tony Markl?
Sorry, it was Col Win DePoorter - flew A-1s from, 1965-69. Finished up in the F-4 in 1984. Was an active CFI until recently; now enjoying the good life, although I drag him out to fly at every opportunity. Best stick and rudder pilot I've ever known. I know we all have one like him we've met along the way ...
As a quick aside, I hooked him up with the late Hank Avery in June 2002 and he was allowed to make a flight in their (at the time) A-1E. I was lucky enough to ride in the blue room. Win flew that thing like it was yesterday. A flight I'll never forget.
Ken
Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:11 pm
Just a quick blurb:
All the same tailwheel rules apply to Mustangs, but things happen much faster.
I teach new Mustang guys only to wheel land, but tail low. This way they have some view of the runway and can better control their touch down point. Slightly tail low (slower) reduces the rollout length as well. I do not recommend 3 pointers on pavement as the light civilian airframes are not predictable on control; the laminar wing can stall unpredictably with a cross wind in a slow 3 point landing; A sudden wing drop at landing is no fun at all. 3 pointers on grass are more forgiving for our civie birds. When guys get more time in their Mustangs, I will recommend they find a nice grass airport to play.
There is a definate difference in flying a 'sport' civilian Mustang and a fully restored (armoured) Mustang. The difference in weight translates to a differnce in control on landing. Imagine a gusty crosswind landing in a Cub versus a loaded Cessna 180, same techniques but one is much-much more interesting.
(ooops.........gotta go........wife has a 'honey-do'!!!)
Thx,
VL
All the same tailwheel rules apply to Mustangs, but things happen much faster.
I teach new Mustang guys only to wheel land, but tail low. This way they have some view of the runway and can better control their touch down point. Slightly tail low (slower) reduces the rollout length as well. I do not recommend 3 pointers on pavement as the light civilian airframes are not predictable on control; the laminar wing can stall unpredictably with a cross wind in a slow 3 point landing; A sudden wing drop at landing is no fun at all. 3 pointers on grass are more forgiving for our civie birds. When guys get more time in their Mustangs, I will recommend they find a nice grass airport to play.
There is a definate difference in flying a 'sport' civilian Mustang and a fully restored (armoured) Mustang. The difference in weight translates to a differnce in control on landing. Imagine a gusty crosswind landing in a Cub versus a loaded Cessna 180, same techniques but one is much-much more interesting.
(ooops.........gotta go........wife has a 'honey-do'!!!)
Thx,
VL
Power
Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:30 pm
BTW, I forgot to mention that I carry power all the way on the airplane, usually 1300 RPM, as the L-5 at 2200 lbs full fuel and loaded likes to sink when you idle the throttle. It also makes your stall speed with flaps and ailerons rolled down at 44 MPH.
Vlado, thanks for your information. Nice to hear about how the big iron flies.
Ken, ask him if he knew Tony Markl. I think they were there the same time.
Vlado, thanks for your information. Nice to hear about how the big iron flies.
Ken, ask him if he knew Tony Markl. I think they were there the same time.
Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:48 pm
Another interesting point: power during landing.
Many Merlin-Mustang owners have come to concensus to carry a little power (no less than 22" @ 2500rpm) in the pattern to prevent/reduce ring slap and engine damage. Factoring the power management aspect, an overhead break works well with the power at initial around 30" @ 2500rpm and at the break reducing to 22". If a nice round break pattern is flown, no power changes are needed till flare/touchdown.......given perfect conditions - no gusts, crosswind, etc. Descent rate is around 700 to 1100 fpm down. Easily a steep and round enough pattern to view the runway at all times. No dragging it in. And if you need a go-around (who doesn't?), airspeed is good and only partial - not full- power is needed...35 to 40" @ 2500rpm.
Radials are kinda the same........'cept the crash and stop Navy types (HEY-I'm pulling your chain!).
VL
Many Merlin-Mustang owners have come to concensus to carry a little power (no less than 22" @ 2500rpm) in the pattern to prevent/reduce ring slap and engine damage. Factoring the power management aspect, an overhead break works well with the power at initial around 30" @ 2500rpm and at the break reducing to 22". If a nice round break pattern is flown, no power changes are needed till flare/touchdown.......given perfect conditions - no gusts, crosswind, etc. Descent rate is around 700 to 1100 fpm down. Easily a steep and round enough pattern to view the runway at all times. No dragging it in. And if you need a go-around (who doesn't?), airspeed is good and only partial - not full- power is needed...35 to 40" @ 2500rpm.
Radials are kinda the same........'cept the crash and stop Navy types (HEY-I'm pulling your chain!).
VL
Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:37 pm
Vlado wrote:
What Valdo said, except in the Spad, no regular wheel landings, prop clearance issues require 3 point or ideally, a "3 point with the tailwheel about 1 foot off the ground", whatever you want to call that. BTW, I've done the "crash and stop" in the Spad, but not always planned it before hand.
Radials are kinda the same........'cept the crash and stop Navy types (HEY-I'm pulling your chain!).
What Valdo said, except in the Spad, no regular wheel landings, prop clearance issues require 3 point or ideally, a "3 point with the tailwheel about 1 foot off the ground", whatever you want to call that. BTW, I've done the "crash and stop" in the Spad, but not always planned it before hand.
Re: Power
Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:39 am
Forgotten Field wrote:Ken, ask him if he knew Tony Markl. I think they were there the same time.
Sorry, he says the name was familiar, but he didn't know him. A quick peek at skyraiders.org shows Tony was likely in the very first USAF A-1 class and my friend was around the 14th. Definitely very close time-wise, but it's a big sky ...
Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:47 am
EDowning wrote:except in the Spad, no regular wheel landings, prop clearance issues require 3 point
Eric, andy idea how many inches/feet of prop clearance there is in the level attitude, assuming normal strut extension? Do you know of any clearance difference between the wide and narrow-body A-1s? Just curious.
As an aside, a neighbor flys an experimantal biplane with a radial engine he calls a PJ and wheel landings are impossible due to prop clearance - I can see where even a short-coupled bounce or PIO after a less-than-smooth 3 pointer could catch a tip. Yikes!
Ken
Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:19 am
Very interesting discussion -
In my 1000 hrs in a Citabria 7GCAA I don't think I did more than 5 wheel landings (80% of my totals were on grass).
My theory was that a wheel landing ends up in the 3 point attitude eventually, so why not start there? Plus you are slightly slower; and I never understood the reasoning for wheeling in a cross-wind - get the thing on the ground and stoppped as quickly as possible.
Of course the Citabria has excellent forward visibility, but then the little time that I have in a Cub I still did 3-points
In my 1000 hrs in a Citabria 7GCAA I don't think I did more than 5 wheel landings (80% of my totals were on grass).
My theory was that a wheel landing ends up in the 3 point attitude eventually, so why not start there? Plus you are slightly slower; and I never understood the reasoning for wheeling in a cross-wind - get the thing on the ground and stoppped as quickly as possible.
Of course the Citabria has excellent forward visibility, but then the little time that I have in a Cub I still did 3-points
Citabria
Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:11 pm
Recently when I found I might be flying a Spitfire again, I wanted to get some more tailwheel practice. It was not easy to find a T-6 in these parts, so I got a Citabria at Longmont. I did about 10 landings, about half of each type. This model has flaps. It was good practice, but one weakness as a trainer is common to Citabria, Decathlon, Super Cub, etc. is that you solo from the front and you can see over the nose straight ahead. For anyone training to fly larger planes like a Spitfire, and especially for those doing 3 pt landings, I'd suggest doing your training in a plane you fly from the rear seat. It can be a J-3 Cub, a Stearman, a Chipmunk, and finally doing T-6 flights from the rear seat. Landing a T-6 from the front seat is good practice, but you can still see over the nose on short final with full flaps. Before I flew my Spitfire solo, I had enough training in the rear cockpit to be comfortable wiht not seeing over the nose. The landing view in a Spitifire is better than the rear seat of a T-6, not as good as the front seat of the 6.
Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:36 pm
Famburg-
I suspect the true reason he made wheelies was because it allowed him to keep the speed up and be more productive. The Beech 18 made fine three point landings and used considerably less runway doing so, in fact that was the factory recommendation for cross wind ops, pinning the tailwheel with full aft stick improved directional control, reducing the touchdown speed reduced the chance of groundloop and dramatically shortened the rollout. Likewise the Stearman, best wheel lander I've ever flown due to the stiff gear but I much preferred three pointing it and using the tailwheel for directional control than the brakes and the shorter landing was a big bonus.
Nothing new about wheel landings just the current fascination with them, as bipe215 confirmed they were not taught in WWII, when the USAF acquired O-1's and AD's for Vietnam that institutional knowledge was almost gone and as Forgotten Field noted tri-cycle gear pilots trained pilots were not used to the once common lack of forward visibility in conventional gear aircraft in landing config.
Tom-
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'.
I suspect the true reason he made wheelies was because it allowed him to keep the speed up and be more productive. The Beech 18 made fine three point landings and used considerably less runway doing so, in fact that was the factory recommendation for cross wind ops, pinning the tailwheel with full aft stick improved directional control, reducing the touchdown speed reduced the chance of groundloop and dramatically shortened the rollout. Likewise the Stearman, best wheel lander I've ever flown due to the stiff gear but I much preferred three pointing it and using the tailwheel for directional control than the brakes and the shorter landing was a big bonus.
Nothing new about wheel landings just the current fascination with them, as bipe215 confirmed they were not taught in WWII, when the USAF acquired O-1's and AD's for Vietnam that institutional knowledge was almost gone and as Forgotten Field noted tri-cycle gear pilots trained pilots were not used to the once common lack of forward visibility in conventional gear aircraft in landing config.
Tom-