Wheelies

[AKGrouch]

Sure wish I had stumbled on this thread before now. Sure would have saved me a lot of grief and worry when my wheelies weren't coming together in my 180 hp 172TD which is configured as a 2 place bird. Spent most of the summer dealing with a squirrly bird on extreme short final until I was almost scared to fly it because of ineffective elevator and dropping it in. Then we figured out that there was a cg prob. After weight in the baggage compartment moved the cg back into the envelope, it settled down. Now I use the 70 mph and 1700 rpm approach on wheel landings....works pretty good. Hold steady 70 mph and 1700 rpm until I pop 40 degrees on very short final, then go to 1400 rpm and wheel land it. If it balloons a bit, add a bit of power to settle it down and wheel land it. Maybe not best approach but seems to work pretty good.....no longer scared of it.

[russfarris]

Each model airplane will have it's own characteristics which will lend itself toward on type on landing over the other. I'm under the impression you never 3 point a DC3 but could be way off.

As for the best type or safest landing type I believe it is the one the pilot is more comfortable and confident completing.

That's right Bruce - at least I never tried to three point a DC-3 (about 900 hours in type.) The common wisdom was if you misjudged things and dropped it in...well, we heard of some guy with another carrier that tried it and broke the tail wheel strut off the airplane.

The way I was taught to land the Three was to touch down on the "back
side the tires" meaning slightly tail low, then you relaxed the back pressure (good landing) or shoved the yoke foward (not so good landing)

Pretty much the way I land my 170B; wheelies 90% of the time with flaps 20. Russ Farris

[iowa]

hi russ
900hrs in a dc3...wow! thats great.
i took that 'a day in a dc3'
in griffin GA.
flew L seat 1.5hrs.
was fantastic.
the instructor said
never 3PL it.
wheelies in a dc3 are very very simple....
just wait until the wheels are a few feet
from the ground and push the yoke forward.
it's like the plane know what to do next,
no bounce etc.
is this right, or am i totally crazy?
i do know after watching the p51's wheel land
at oshkosh, they would be very exciting!!
dave

[blueldr]

Re: The Above---

" Just wait until the wheels are a few feet from the ground and push the yoke forward"

Amazing! And after only 1.5 hrs!

Were they able to use the airplane again?

[iowa]

BL
absolutely!
i was so used to "feeling" for the RW in my
C140, C170 and C180 for wheel landings,
one know what happens if you give forward to soon,
and thot this would be done in the dc3.
but no...we just pushed the yoke forward
and the wheel landing was smoother than
my good ones in my planes!!
it was so simple i couldn't believe it.
it wasn't a fluke as we made about 5-6 landings.
the only other thing that amazed me
was how LOUD the hydralics would scream at you
while using certain controls...i.e. the brakes.
dave

[lowNslow]

I have to agree with Russ' technique above. I flew DC3 freighters in a previous life (fleet of 8 ) and almost every one landed in the tail low attitude and rolled on the back side of the tires and then a LITTLE forward pressure. When the runway was wet it was hard to tell when you were on the ground.

[iowa]

if i were me
i'd believe you guys,
and i do
i did go back and review
a vhs tape that my friend had
taken of us landing.
it clearly shows us wheel landing,
and, in fact, the tail wheel stays up
for 25 secs!
maybe it was because the plane
was empty except for us two pilots.
dave

[iowa]

i am a member of the vintage aircraft assn.
in the lastest issue of their magazine,
there is a nice article about wheel vs 3pL's
dave

[GAHorn]

Here's a pretty nice site with an extensive discussion on such matters:
http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx

As you might expect, I do not subscribe to all the techniques as exactly described at that website, but they contribute to a good overview, and I endorse most of what is recommended there.

I do disagree with the discussion regarding take off technique and suggestions to "disregard" airspeed during takeoff.... as well as the suggestion/recommendation that wheel landings are unnecessary and should not be used (per Gene Lehman, now deceased.)

I do not agree that it's good technique to "force" the tail up during takeoff. I know that some folks like to do this, and if the runway is especially rough I've been known to do it also to protect the fragile tailwheel/suspension. But generally it is not a good idea.
If the tail is "forced" to come up before it is normally ready to fly on it's own.... then the tailwheel is no longer in contact with the ground, available for steering. (The elevators have twice the area and twice the effectiveness of the rudder. The elevators are capable of raising the tail at speeds too slow for equally-effective rudder, and therefore the directional control of the airplane is unnecessarily at risk.)

I usually hold the elevators full up/back to keep weight on the tailwheel until the airspeed indicator registers forward speed. This provides maximum steering capability from the tailwheel as well as provides resistance to x-winds due to tailwheel (still in it's steering detent) contact with the ground. As the airspeed builds I nuetralize the elevators to allow them to streamline with relative wind. Since the horizontal stabilizer/elevators assembly is at positive angle-of-attack, the building airspeed eventually provides sufficient lift to the nuetral elevators to raise the tail. Conveniently this is indicative of increasing rudder authority as well. (If the tail flies on it's own...it has become sufficiently effective to depend upon rudder for directional control.) Continuing the takeoff, the aircraft angle-of-attack will continue to reduce as the tail gains flying authority/lift. This brings the nose down towards the horizon, and a perceptive pilot will notice the main gearlegs begin to support a greater amount of aircraft weight because the cabin appears to "sink" as the weight spreads the main gearlegs. (Now that the tail is supporting it's own weight, the aircraft CG has shifted more forward.) A glance at the airspeed indicator will show the airplane ready to fly and a slight "positive rotation" by bringing the yoke back/elevators up will result in a positive angle-of-attack (AOA) and a nice lift-off. (Hint: Don't rotate too early. Wait for that little "sink", or AOA reduction that occurs after the tail comes up on it's own. This occurs a few seconds after the tail is self-supporting.)
Next time you taxy out, notice the nuetral point of your yoke as the elevator counter-balance horns are streamlined with the horizontal stabilizer. You will notice that your yoke is in the central position...your knuckles about even with the doorpost..... a great reference point to place your yoke during takeoff roll if you should decide to try this technique.
Notice that this technique also agrees with factory recommendations in that it provides a "tail low" attitude for takeoff. (The tail is in the air due to it's natural lift, but not being forced up to a completely level angle of attack during takeoff roll.)
Not forcing the tail up will avoid several common errors/risks:
The tail is not forced into the air before rudder effectiveness takes place.
Forward over-rotation is avoided (and the associated dangers of nose-over due to inadvertent brake applications prior to effective elevator which can be used to prevent nose-over.
"Forcing" the tail up also exposes the elevators to possible damage due to foreign object damage (FOD) from the runway blown back by prop-wash. (To "force" the tail up places the elevators down closer to the ground during early takeoff, and is contrary to keeping the yoke fully back to maintain tailwheel steering.)
The aircraft wings produce sufficient lift to support flight at slower speeds, thereby avoiding unnecessary wear on tires, prop-tip erosion due to FOD and minimizing runway useage, thereby reducing the time exposed to side-loads on the gear.
The technique also provides a good indicator of the aircraft's readiness for flight. (If the tail will fly naturally, so will the airplane if AOA is increased. While the airplane may lift off at slighty higher speeds than is possible in a 3-point lift-off, it provides better directional control and avoids hopping takeoffs which may expose the airplane to abuse and loss of control risks. This avoids the risk of the airplane departing the runway at less-than-optimum speeds in gusty conditions, which may result in re-contact with the runway.)

Just my suggestion. I hope you'll try it. Don't forget to hold the yoke fully back until the airplane begins good forward movement (gives you a chance to confirm takeoff RPM is achieved) and keep ailerons into any cross-winds.

As for the other website's contributor's suggestion that wheel landings are unwise/unsuitable and that "other" landing runways should be used in strong x-winds that suggest the use of wheel-landings.... I disagree that "other" landing sites are always available or otherwise desireable. Sometimes we want to land at places that do not have runways conveniently aligned with winds, and wheel-landings are useful in those circumstances.
A good aviatior will be proficient in both 3-point and wheel landings, and in winds aligned with runways and in cross-winds. Neither type landing is "universal" in all circumstances and that is why you need to have both types in your repertoire.

Whichever technique you decide to use at the moment.... Keep that stick back until ready to fly, and also immediately after the tailwheel is allowed onto the ground.

[AR Dave]

I don't know where we were talking about this before, but yesterday I got these measurements. 8.50 tires / 180 gear legs / 80 inch prop.
Blade tip is 27 inches from ground in 3 point. Lifted tailwheel axle 34 inches to where plane looked like flight attitude. Tip of blade was at 19.5 inches.