When to 3-Point and When to Wheels-Land Your Taildragger
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- The definitive answer to the question; when should you wheels land your trail dragger, and when should you three point land it? While they can be used interchangeably, there are certain situation which requires a tailwheel airplane to be wheeler landed or three-pointed.
The physics behind STOL takeoffs fully explained: • The Physics Behind Sho...
Follow me on Instagram: / lets_go_aviate
Completely understand airplane propellers - th-cam.com/video/hvboi6w1Z9A/w-d-xo.html
STOL takeoff theory explained - th-cam.com/video/aJd1xEmbWOU/w-d-xo.html
You're a brave man for wading into this topic! :D I'm an Aviation Medical Examiner in Alaska and I see a lot of pilots, many of whom own and fly taildraggers. I always ask "Wheelies or three-points?" It's a fun poll. Roughly 80% prefer wheel landings and virtually 100% of Part 135 operators prefer them. I've had a few tell me they never allow their pilots to three-point. I own and fly a Cessna 180 and learned to fly it from three very experienced bush pilots. Every one of them taught me to wheel land in all conditions except three-points for short field grass and gravel.
I think the three-point comes much more naturally for pilots since almost all of us learn in tricycle gear airplanes ("hold it off, hold it off, more right rudder!"). It takes work to master the wheelie. But those that do generally believe it provides better control through all phases of a landing (and no, using a bit of differential brake to maintain center-line does not cause a nose-over.) Thanks for posting!
Thanks for your comment, I grew up watching my Dad fly Cessna 180's and Helio Courier's in the 1960's and '70's Canadian Arctic, I would observe his technique of course. He would vary the technique depending on the situation but on the average day it was a wheel landing. His take-off in the Helio was almost always tail high and lift off cleanly, in some very early years he had a Helio that came with cross wind gear, seems to me he would land three point or tail lowish with that airplane, if I recall correctly. That's a long time ago, I have a Homebuilt British kit plane called a Europa Monowheel, it has a tailwheel and does need to be three pointed always on landing.
I have been known to dive into dividing topics 😆 Probably because I see no point in picking one or the other since both has it's pro's and cons.
That's interesting, thanks! When I did my tailwheel conversion training initially years back, the wheel landing came so naturally to me. I struggled with the 3 pointer and only did a 3 pointer every 10 or so landings. Then I started getting into short field/STOL type landings, and when I couldn't get my landing roll shortened, I knew I had to use the 3 pointer. Fast forward, now I very much prefer the 3 pointer (in the 172 taildragger as well as our previous plane which is a Kitfox clone). I pretty much only wheel land in gusty headwind.
Yep I hear ya, you can use the differential braking to maintain centreline with the tail up. That's not what I'm on about though. If you get a massive crosswind gust with the tail up, one that weathervanes you a lot, I'd like to see you stomp on one brake without nosing over. And if you don't, it's off the runway with you, split second reactions. I know 2 pilots that left the runway doing wheel landings in a gusty crosswind. Both are somewhat high hour pilots and managed not to groundloop, but went off the runway nonetheless.
Learning on a tri-gear is the worst thing for those wanting to convert to taildraggers. Too much negative trg during the primacy of learning stage.
Once a pilot learns to reflexively control tail height by moderating brake pressure, the risk of a nose-over is eliminated, and wheel landings become the safest and best method in any gusty or crosswind situation. In most taildraggers, differential brake steering is far more positive and reliable than either rudder or tailwheel steering, whether the tail is up or down. Whenever rudder and/or tailwheel steering does not immediately accomplish the desired result, the most effective way to exert and maintain precise directional control is to add in some differential brake steering. Learning tail-up braking and controlling tail height with brakes allows pilots to maintain precise control of their taildraggers in practically any wind conditions. Wheel landings offer better visibility of the runway and/or obstacles, better rudder authority prior to touchdown, and the ability to choose exactly when and where to touch down, rather than just waiting (very vulnerably) for the lift to run out, as is the case in every three point landing. After touching down, as rudder authority begins to diminish, differential braking becomes the primary steering method until the tail is let down, which can be as late as the pilot wishes. Adding power to increase elevator authority and tail-up braking to counteract the resulting increased thrust allows pilots to keep the tail up until stopping completely if they wish. The tail can then be let down softly by reducing power. Alternatively, the tail can be let down softly immediately before stopping by applying as much brake pressure as required to prevent it from falling rapidly. For more details and a series of exercises for developing these skills, see “The Art of Avoiding Ground Loops,” available on Amazon.
A wheel landing goes through the same point of transition is a three-point, so be careful
@@mikepittman8295at 1/3d the speed…
All wheelers end in three points anyway so why carry more energy near ground for longer? Wheelers physically make no sense.
@@chipcity3016 Better tell that to DC-3 pilots. They never make a 3 point landing.
@@chipcity3016you need more instruction then.
Douglas DC-3 in civilian life is wheel landing only, 3-point not permitted. The military C-47 or Dakota does not prohibit 3-point landings but warns of adverse handling characteristic associated with stall and engine drop off.
Nice showing a T-6, though. The strange thing about the Texan/SNJ/Harvard is that when facing a nasty crosswind, a 3-point gets you safely on the ground l, tail down l, and airspeed decayed to taxi way better than wheel landing.Sure a wheel landing gets you on the mains and rolling … but sooner later, you have to get the tail down, tail wheel locked and holding the centerline, as you slow. That’s when you’re vulnerable and wishing you hadn’t got it your faith in the wheel landing. The 3-pointed is a misnomer l: you’re really wing-down-into-the-wind and make runway contact with the upwind wheel •and the tail wheel• for longitudinal control! When under control, lower the downwind wheel and roll out straight.
Not necessarily the easiest crosswind landing you’ll ever make, to be sure.
Brilliantly explained, thank you so much. I'm a tricycle pilot slowly trying to get to grips with taildraggers, this was most helpful.
Great to hear! Thanks
Tail has to come down sometime. Might as well start there
4K hrs of tail wheel time and I agree. May as well find out if you have enough rudder in the 3 point attitude from the start.
exactly. that tail needs to come down at some point. either you have enough rudder or you don’t
FINALLY A DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO WHEN TO USE WHEEL LANDING!!! THANKS!
The instructor who instructed me on the Do 27 was a former Bf109 instructor. He taught me only three-points and obviously thought that wheelies are not worth it because I would be able to do them anyway after learning three-points. At least that turned out so, and later I even tended to do tail-wheel landings, which have some advantages if you think about it (and if the tailwheel can stand them). The airplane was still far from stall in three-point attitude.
Like the Bf109, the Do27 has a "loose" tailwheel (not even lockable), a "narrow-gauge" landing gear, and a high C/G. After having learned to fly Cessnas, I had to learn flying (at least landing) again, especially crossed controls and use of the wheel brakes. Looking forward wasn't possible at high AOA's, anyway, so looking sideways was plain necessary.
The DC-3, as mentioned here before, is quite different. It can even stall before reaching three-point attitude so wheelies are a must. Obviously, it needs full up elevator on the ground to have the rudder effective and the tailwheel on the ground. And my old instructors (former WWII pilots) told me that DC-3s just didn't land in gusty crosswind because there was a weak spot somewhere in the landing gear struts which let it break when hit sideways.
So taildragger landing seems to be a can of worms, at least you have to specify which kind or even type of taildragger you're talking about. I'm not saying taildragger landings are especially hard, I just mean you need special instruction before doing them. (Like maximum flap deflection was reduced to 35° due to many pilots not properly instructed to use 45°.)
Well explained. I prefer wheel landing my Stearman for forward visibility reasons. For my Cub, I prefer three point. I found that if I try to land tailwheel first then I get the three point stance every time.
In strong windy conditions I would land on the mains then as the aeroplane slowed down would apply a bit of power against the brakes. This gave me good control of elevator and rudder until a very low speed when I would gently lower the tail and then reduce the power. On one occasion in the mid 1980's I was forced to land an Aeronca 11AC Chief at Durban International Airport, which has a stall speed of about 37 miles per hour in winds of 35 Knots gusting to 50 knots, after landing I had to taxi to a tie down point in front of the tower under brakes and power with the tail in the air to keep it from being blown away by the wind. My passenger got out and tied down the wings to a mooring cable after which I lowered the tail and cut the motor while the passenger tied down the tail.
Another point not mentioned regards landing on rough or rocky ground you want to keep the little tailwheel off as long as possible to protect it. This applies to takeoff as well. Bottom line is you should be able to do both equally as well (dependent on the aircraft, some do have specific requirements or recommendations concerning this)
In the old airtractor radial days guys would put geared 1320s with huge dc3 props on them and if you wheel landed them you’d have a bad day.
I am never going to fly a plane. However, I am an engineer and I really enjoyed your concise overview. 😊
Thanks 🙂
Contrary to some of the comments about the DC 3, it CAN be three pointed in the right circumstances. In the Papua New Guinea highlands many of the old airstrips were short, rough and often muddy or wet and slippery grass. Usually there was little wind, and some strips were one way only due to slope or surrounding terrain. We regularly three point landed, with an approach speed about 5 knots below the usual wheel landing speed (75 knots , if I recall).
At the other extreme, I flew DC 3s in the Shetlands and Northern Europe, where crosswinds of up to 25 knots were commonplace. The favoured technique was to approach at about 80 knots, crabbing to maintain centreline, a slight flare while simultaneously kicking straight with rudder and opposing aileron, and holding tail up, wing down at touchdown, so that the windward wheel made contact first. Then aggressive use of rudder and aileron to keep it under control with the tail held up as long as possible. As the tail came down, differential braking, and once it was down and completely blanketed, sometimes a dab of differential throttle, all the while holding the ailerons hard over into wind. With practice it was pure ballet.
Another consideration is prop clearance. I had a lovely little Sonex which I never had the courage to wheel land, due to its limited prop clearance. I’m sure that it could be wheel landed by someone less ham fisted, but for me it was always a three pointer. Fortunately it had very predictable stall behaviour and good tail wheel steering.
The Tiger Moth is another one that was better three pointed, but it had a very low crosswind limit. About 10 knots maximum. Originally it had a tail skid which was fine on grass, but later modifications available included a tail wheel and differential brakes to handle paved runways.
Great description here about landing the DC3, thanks!
The Pitts biplane community generally sticks to 3 point to avoid prop strike on landing. There are people who wheel land a Pitts, however. I was taught 3 point and that's what I always do.
What a great discussion and one I havent ever seen before in a video. What you say makes perfect sense. Three point is my favourite for the cub as it lands a little shorter. But your point about secondary lift off or ballooning is such a valid one. Yes the taildragger should always be 'flown on' and not stalled on in a strong headwind
Yes, in strong headwind we will have to fly it on, thus wheel landing. No we don't have to increase airspeed to do this. Get slow enough on short final to sink. This will require dynamic throttle to nail glide angle and rate of descent to the exact needed spot. At this power/pitch airspeed, the Cub (most small airplanes) can be angled across wide runways from the downwind corner (exact needed spot) to the upwind big airplane touchdown zone marking which is a thousand feet. In a 20 knot headwind component of a strong crosswind, the Cub should be able to be stopped without braking in fifty feet. The Stromberg carburetor will gulp (sounds like the engine quit) with necessary rapid dynamic throttle movement. Windmilling prop will get you going again. Really. No tailwheel airplane will wipe out the gear, wing tip, and prop/engine in a ground loop going 20 mph ground speed. Not saying we need to ground loop, but when fast the airplane is totalled. No, we will not be stalled. Yes, we will need ground handling or the fuel truck to block crosswind to taxi.
The P51 Pilot's Handbook states: "To be safe, land on the wheels first" - If I wasn't aware of the difference between taildragger landing methods, I'd be alarmedly wondering what other options there are for landing on first.
The globe swift is generally wheel landed, as the wheel wells can cause huge drag in the 3 point attitude.. some planes prefer being wheeled out some planes prefer 3 point.. same with pilots.
I have a Courier and my FI told me to never try a 3 point landing with a crosswind, because if youre slow, close to the stall, you have no control over the longitudinal axis, so you cant roll the plane if a gust suddenly wants to push one of your wings up, also the slower you are the lower control you have on your rudder, so moments before touching down and being able to correct using the brakes, the nose of the airplane can aim into the wind because it is pushing way to hard along the tail... Speed means security and assure you have enough roll and yaw control.
So i cant agree on using 3 point landings if you have a severe crosswind, better have speed roll into the wind opposite pedal, touch down with one main wheel and keep it until the other wheel touches the ground, keep ailerons deflected and use brakes to maintain the nose straight.
This wheel landing in headwind gusts brings another discussion - raising flaps during rollout. There will be those who say no transitions on landing roll and those saying you immediately add extra margin to your gust factor needed to make you inadvertently fly. For both, I would suggest change your heuristic to be “no cleanups on rollout” meaning if you have purpose for the transition during rollout, do it as it isn’t a cleanup in those circumstances.
I was doing my taildragger training on PZL-104 Wilga, and its AFM clearly says that only 3 point landings are recommended.
Great video BTW.
Interesting! Thanks
The RV-8 has a reputation for not liking to 3-point except perhaps with aft CG. I ran out of elevator the first time trying to 3-point mine while solo. Most of us wheel them on. Use what works best for you. Know your cross-wind limits and remain within them. The best way to stay out of trouble is to avoid it.
Not production aircraft, but many of the Reno Unlimited race planes need to be both taken off and landed on three points due to prop clearance.
Learned to fly 2 different tail draggers, The flying school for the Tiger moth wanted a wheeler, the flying school for the more modern Skyfox type wanted a 3 pointer. The theory if I recall was that the tiger moth needed more airflow over the rudder to as not to try turn itself around and kill you, the Skyfox was more responsive with rudder at lower air speed and so they wanted a 3 pointer and have the tail wheel in control as soon as possible.
I've never flown a tail dragger and don't have any plans to fly one but this was very interesting video. I'll keep this in mind in case I fly one.
Excellent explanation ... and btw if in doubt the wheel-landing (two point) is the safer one, because some aircraft have the tendency to start jumping out of the three poit attitude. Thanks for the video.
Wheel landing on rough or bumpy/hard grass runways usually leads to the aircraft goes flying again - I prefer 3-point in those conditions. If you could address the runway condition too instead of only focusing on the wind that would be great 😃 thanks for a great video
Good coverage of all the variables. Wolfgang, in Stick and Rudder, talks about finishing the touchdown in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat. But he doesn't go into the variables as you do. Because tw airplanes are becoming more expensive and are totalled when ground looped with considerable airspeed, I think we should go back to his advice regardless of technique used to finish. I have alway taught the power/pitch deceleration on short final coming into ground effect technique. If we are in a three point attitude with power (well below Vso in low ground effect) just before touchdown, we are as slow as possible. Now simply levelling the fuselage gives us the wheel landing options you mentioned without enough extra airspeed to total the airplane in a ground loop. Yes, serious gust spread requires an active throttle. We bring the throttle into active and dynamic play as glide angle and rate of descent control when we pitch up to decelerate (with power) enough on short final to get a sink requiring us to bring the throttle into play. Balloon, close throttle and then adjust throttle. Sink, full throttle and then adjust throttle. LOC fatalities, more prevalent than they were mid last century, result from too much airspeed. Driving it on with the wheel landing technique is good wind management, but the extra airspeed is not needed nor is it safe. Get into the three point attitude slow and near the beginning of the runway and then three point or wheel land to your heart's content.
Thanks. You are touching onto something valid. This is why I said the wheel landing doesn't necessarily need faster approach speed than the 3 point, but I don't go into it any further. I'm in agreement about the dangers of approaching too fast.
Of course I also didn't talk about the variations of the wheel landing, like tail low, tail high etc. which gives even more control.
@@chucklemasters6433 Totally incorrect information? Please let me know what exactly I said is incorrect, unless you were just being dramatic. What you wrote regarding aileron input is correct, but that doesn't make anything I said incorrect.
I thought it was obvious, but this video is about the differences between the 3 point and wheel landing, and the pros and cons of each. While ground loop obviously enters the conversation, the main point of this video is NOT about how to prevent a ground loop, or I would have titled it "How to Prevent a Ground Loop". I repeat, the emphasis of the video is on all factors making the 3 point or wheel landing more or less safe, and is thus about decision making, NOT about technique.
The factory Pitts S2B I owned in the 1990's had a statement in the owner's manual that said wheel landings should be avoided. Didn't explain why but I always 3 pointed it and that early tail wheel contact always straightened the direction of travel (corrected drift). Also, when accomplished simultaneously with full stall gave no opportunity to bounce or porpoise.
Wheel landings have always been the scariest because sometimes it’s just a sensation that you’re leaned over too far and that you will have a prop strike. My instructor told me to look to the side to see the angle of attack against the horizon. That in itself is scary as soon as you take your eyes off the front of the airplane, you risk the possibility of a ground loop.
Great video. It's interesting to note that wheel landings transition into a three point position, and at this point you're exposed to the same risks.
Yep as I said at 5:04
Same risks, but risk is a lot lower when the tail comes down as speed is barely enough to hold the tail up, much less enough to go flying again if there is a gust.
I liked the video because it was clear and unbiased.
The great pity is few pilots training today ever get near a tail wheel aircraft, so don't develop some basic skills that are just as relevant today as they always were. When the crosswinds blow hard or the runway is slippery - no matter whether it's a light single or a heavy jet you fly - the pilot with tail dragger time will be ahead of the game
Besides which, modern nosewheel aircraft are a bit lame, tail draggers are FUN.
Surely the speed at which the tailwheel touches the ground is different:-
On a 3-point landing, when the tailwheel touches the ground the elevator is fully ‘up’. On a wheel landing, when the tailwheel touches the ground the elevator is fully ‘down’ and much slower.
It seems to me the main difference is the ground handling between tailwheel touchdown speed (3-point, ie stall speed) where the plane is susceptible to gusts making the wing fly again but has good rudder authority, vs a wheel landing keeping the tail up and wing at low-to-zero incidence, reducing/eliminating the chance of a gust making the wing fly, but at the cost of losing rudder authority until the tailwheel touches down.
This suggests to me that it’s better to wheel land with a gusty wind straight down the runway, and 3-point with a crosswind, gusty or not.
With a steady wind straight down the runway, it doesn’t really matter either way.
DC-3. Wheels landing only. With three point you’ll blank the rudder. They have issues with takeoff if you don’t raise the tail to step pretty quickly as they have insufficient airflow to counter turning tendencies which means you don’t want to three point the DC-3.
RAF pilot notes for Auster AOP 6 are pretty firm on 3 point only due to the aircraft's tendency to bounce in the wheel landing. The AOP 9 is forbidden from 3 point due tendency to drop right wind.
The Mosquito was normally wheel landed. If you tried to three point it, the extended flaps would block the air flow to the rudder and a loss of directional control was likely.
Most Pitts 12 pilots will say they should never be wheeled on. The prop clearance is very small. I have known pilots who did it out of ignorance much to the panic of the aircraft owner. The margin is quite small.
Yeah I'd say so, but the Pitts can be wheels landed safely, albeit carefully. In one of my aerobatic lessons, the instructor wheels landed the Pitts S2A. The video of that flight/lesson is actually on this channel.
[EDIT] I missed your reference to model 12, and as per Alex's reply below seems it's different to the S1 and S2 Pitts I was referring to.
@@LetsGoAviatea regular PITTS yes you can wheel land it. But the model-12 is a totally different PITTS. It’s huge and has the big Russian radial with a huge prop. Nothing like a standard model 2
@@alexmonroe3111 Ah yeah ok, noted.
A Pitts 12 is a different beast all together. My memory is the MT prop is Ø98" and may be bigger for the higher HP versions of the M-14. I had the pleasure of riding in the original prototype A/C and was forbidden from wheel landings. My favorite technique has been the slow wheel landing. Fly it down like a 3 point and then raise the tail to stick the mains. This does not use up extra runway and prevents ballooning. @@LetsGoAviate
I always three point my Stinson 108 because even a wheel landing soon becomes three point and the sooner all wheels are on the ground I feel absolutely in control. One technique I use when I need tail rudder control at low speeds is to input the rudder in the direction I want the nose to turn then momentarily nudge the throttle. Works great even up to 30 knot gusts.
I owned a 108-3 about 40 years ago (when it was only 40 years old or so.) Metal wings and a Franklin engine. What a sweet airplane Stinson made!
Good video Thank you! Hope to own a tail dragged some day!
Tail-low wheeler works fine in most aircraft. Once you can consistently acheive that at touch down, of course.
Sort of the best of both worlds. Does require some decent skills though.
I had a Bushby Mustang II, which uses a laminar airfoil. The stall characteristics for that plane are sudden with little pre-stall buffet and a sharp wing drop (to the right on mine). That combined with stiff main gear legs meant three point landings were extremely difficult to pull off well. I bounced my way down many runways until I figured out that a wheel landing could help avoid those problems. After that, bounced landings were fairly rare and I greased more landings than I could count. Also, the plane had a naturally aft CG so using the brakes at any point in the landing was never a problem. A Cessna 120, however, will definitely punish you for being too heavy on the brakes at speed (tail up or down).
I prefer three points landings but a good pilot has to master the two points as well.
I agree
Quicky Q2 and Q200s cannot wheel land due to their extremely low prop clearance. KR2 struggles immensely with three point landings due to the poor pitch authority at low airspeeds, and will usually tail strike first
Actually one taildragger I have owned that requires wheel landings only is the Pitts Model 12 due to the length of the prop.
Why would a long prop prevent a threepointer?
There is no universal recipe. It’s not “paint-by-numbers.” Wheel landings are possible, but discouraged in the Extra, for example. Most pilots breaking the main gear in Extras are dicking around with wheel landings. The Extra handles big crosswinds pretty well in the three-point attitude and there is a much lower chance of side-loading the gear.
I always, save the tiny wheel!!! :)
A full stall 3-point landing vs a wheel landing is all about the airplane transitioning from being a flying machine to a ground machine. In a stall landing the airplane stops being a flying machine while still in the air. The flying surfaces don't work and your ground control devices (wheels) are in the air and don't work either. You have absolutely no control for a short period of time between the stall and the touchdown. That's fine on a calm day, but a strong direct crosswind during that short time will push the tail strongly to one side and there is nothing you can do about it. You have made the transition from a flying machine to a ground machine while still in the air with absolutely no control for a second or two. A wheel land allows you to keep the airplane as a flying machine even after you have the wheels on the ground. When you slow down with a wheel landing you slowly lose the air control surfaces while simultaneously increasing the ground control devices. If you lose all you flying control surfaces before you gain full control of ground control devices (full rudder against the crosswind with the tail still up), you increase power and abort the landing. A wheel landing allows a gradual transition from an air vehicle to a ground vehicle, allowing you to abort at any time. With a crosswing that is too strong for your airplane, a wheel landing gives you the chance to keep full control throughout the landing process and allows you to abort when you discover that the crosswind is too strong. A full stall landing under the same too strong crosswind conditions will ALWAYS result in a ground loop because you've given up any and all control for a short period of time while your tail is strongly pushed sideways by the wind.
"A full stall landing under the same too strong crosswind conditions will ALWAYS result in a ground loop because you've given up any and all control for a short period of time while your tail is strongly pushed sideways by the wind." So under the same conditions, after your wheel landing, you're in the exact same position as if you had tree pointed it.Whatever you did before the tail comes down is irrelevant and it doesn't magically make the aircraft more controllable because you landed it on the wheels first. I did about three wheel landings with an instructor in my Maule and never used them again. In hundreds of landings, under every imaginable condition and surfaces, I never came close to a ground loop, so I guess I feel cheated...Touch down, flaps up , brakes and it's done flying. Instead of careening down the runway way faster and longer than necessary, with the ground steering device up in the air where it does no good whatsoever.,
@@PDZ1122 You are absolutely correct in that making a wheel landing does NOT magically make you able to land in a strong cross wind. When I suspect a crosswind that is too strong for my airplane I wheel land it and start slowing down. As you slow down you must put in more and more rudder to counteract the crosswind. You do this until the tailwheel touches down. If you run out of rudder and your tailwheel is still in the air and you keep slowing down, you WILL groundloop. If you run out of rudder and the tailwheel is still in the air, you put on power and abort the landing. Using this method you never lose control of the airplane. I've come to uncontroled fields where the windsock is standing straight out 90 degrees to the runway. I didn't know whether the wind was 15mph or 40mph. If I suspect it's too strong to land I try the above procedure to be sure. I think it very very dangerous and foolish to full stall an airplane when you know for a fact that there is a crosswind but you don't know how strong. If you've never ground looped doing full stall landings that just means the crosswinds were not too strong for how much rudder authority you have.
@@michaelrunnels7660 I've landed in some serious crosswinds. How would you "nit know how strong the crosswind is?? Even without a windsock or AWOS, the way I figure out if it's too strong is simple: I crab on final. This will tell you immediately how strong the crosswind is. Then feed in rudder until the nose is straight. If you get close to the limit of rudder travel, it's probably not the best idea to land. But when landing three point, you have immediate tailwheel steering plus hard differential braking and rudder becomes far less important. You do your thing, but don't presume to tell others what they are doing doesn't work or is dangerous.
Rans S-9 and probably the S-10 can not be wheel-landed. And it is not because of prop-clearance but the wheels are too far in front of the CG so the tail drops down directly when the wheels hit the grond, increasing the alfa and you take off again, usually with a not desired result ...
The terminology of this is interesting. "3 point" is obvious and intuitive; you're touching at 3 points simultaneously. Why not call the other a "2 point" landing??
Not sure, I didn't make up the terminology 😆 But likely because the 3 point will only be a 3 point touchdown if there is little or no crosswind. Doing a "3 point" touchdown in a crosswind, with aileron into the wind like you should, touchdown will be on the windward main wheel and tailwheel, with the leeward main wheel in the air. In effect this will is a 2 point touchdown. So if we also call a wheel landing a 2 point it will get confusing 🙂
Sukhois cannot be two pointed for both landing and takeoff due to the very little prop clearance they have…
It all depends on wind velocity and direction.
Thank you !
Type of aircraft makes a difference.
Polish aircraft PZL104 Wilga must take off and land in 3-point configuration
2:43 My grandfather used to have one of those!
During WW2 and before there were only a few aircraft that were regularly wheel landed. The C47 was one but it was a structural reason; when heavily loaded it could bend the fuselage if stalled to high above the runway. Same with the earlier Ford Trimotor. The Corsair was landed in a tail low attitude because of turbulence over the tail at high AoA... EVERY other aircraft manual or instructional, British, US or German , teaches three point landings. Show me one that doesn't, and it will be a rare exception. What's more, none of them show this currently fashionable technique of shoving the stick way forward, forcing the tail up as soon as possible and then violently rotating.
I see no benefit in wheel landings whatsoever. The tailwheel steers. It doesn't steer when it's up in the air. In my Maule I never resorted to wheel landings, even in the gustiest crosswind. Racing down the runaway with a crosswind and your tail sticking up takes twice the runway length, higher touchdown speed, less braking , you're more susceptible to side gusts and as you slow down, guess what: you're now in the same position as you would have been had you landed three point in the first place. It's illogical. Whatever perceived benefits there are they are outweighed by the negatives. I think it became fashionable among nosewheel pilots who were (badly) trained to just fly the airplane onto the ground instead of properly flaring.
My 2cents. Worth about $2,40.
"Fashionable"? 🤣
The wheels landing is a tool/skill, and a pilot should have many tools. That's all it is, nothing more, nothing less - at least to me. I certainly don't know anything about being fashionable.
Thanks for the comment, I didn't know that about the C-47 / DC-3.
Wheel landings in my Funk with its oleo struts generally result in bouncing down the runway at stall or otherwise. 3pts are always smoother in it. The tailwheel is locked to the rudder directly. Brakes are mechanical. Differential steering in like steering a boat at best.
Been in the cropdusting industry for years and I’ve never seen a single 502/602/802 do a three point landing. I do three points in my 402 but they say it’s easier because I have much shorter gear legs
@@willjohnson3907 Interesting. Now that you mention it, I've got video clips of the 802 doing a bunch of wheels landings, but no 3 pointers. But they are all so bouncy, you'd think the 3 pointer would be easier.
Just curious as to your opinion on wheel landings being "preferred" with Globe Swifts over three point landings.
I wheel just to protect my tiny tailwheel as much as I can.
DC-3 was mains first and threepoint was discouraged, no?
In nearly 50 years of on/off association with the DC 3 and 3000 hours actually flying it, I never saw any official documentation discouraging or prohibiting 3 point landings. I have seen the statement that a mishandled three point landing could result in wing drop at the stall (the DC3 did have a nasty power on stall) and the potential to damage the fuselage if it dropped in from a too high flare (duh!).
In various operational manuals I have seen various recommendations regarding crosswind landing techniques - some good and some dubious. All recommend wheeling it on (understandable!) and various crosswind limitations from as low as 15 knots to as high as 21 knots, but these were operator imposed limitations. Somewhere I recall that the ‘demonstrated’ crosswind was 17 knots. All that means is that on the day that they certified it in a particular airworthiness category, the test pilot found 17 knots to do the handling test.
However different countries make their own rules, so varying limitations and prohibitions for such an old aircraft type would be quite likely.
@@captratty2167 Thanks for the insight. So it seems it was the opposite, mains were encouraged. I'll have to investigate if Li-2 was handled in a similar way behind the Iron Curtain.
The rear parachute will save you from a somersault
Im able to do both interchangeably. And..... fight!
The object of landing is facilitated by the absence of energy used to produce lift. Their for landing with with more energy than less is counter productive.
In my 40 years of flying tail draggers there is not one valid argument I've heard for not landing three point.
PITTS model-12 only 3 point. You don’t even run it on the mains during take off. Pretty sure the prop clearance isn’t great
Yeah I saw your reply on another comment, thanks. Reminds me of the P-47 Thunderbolt which I seem to remember can't be wheels landed or even the tail lifted on takeoff due to prop clearance either, but obviously an extremely rare aircraft today.
@@LetsGoAviate yeah hmm, I didn’t know that. I luckily got to see the restored p-47 razor back “Bonnie” at both Oshkosh and the Reno air races. I don’t remember if they ran I on the mains or not though. It does have a massive prop on it.
Europa mono wheel can't be wheeler landed
Don't forget the go around ....
G109b POH says 3 point only.
First type commented on here for which only one of the two landings are allowed by the POH. Thanks!
The US ARMY AR FORT RUCKER ALABAMA ONLY TOUGHT FULL STALL 3 POINT LANDINGS
Dc3 can’t be 3-pointed either. It has a locking tailwheel so you can’t steer it. Also once the tail is lowered you lose all rudder authority. Many dc3s have been ran off the runway due to this. Lower the tail and you lose all ability to steer the plane
I was taught both wheel and three point landings in DC3s for Papua New Guinea highland operations. The three pointer was preferable on short, rough and often wet/soft strips. Fortunately winds are generally not too strong in those areas. At the other extreme, I also flew the DC 3 in Scotland and the Shetland Islands, where 25 knot gusty crosswinds were par for the course.
In those conditions a wheeler with lots of into-wind aileron countered by opposite rudder during the rollout was essential. Fortunately most British DC3 s had been modified with heavy duty disc brakes, so as the tail came down directional control was good if your feet knew what to do.
At the other end of the scale, I had a home built Sonex tail dragger. It was the world’s easiest aircraft to three point, but I felt that it did not have enough prop clearance to risk wheeling it on.
It’s “wheel landing” not “wheels landing.”