Home
 
Issues
 
Web Pages
 
Airplanes
 
Fly-Ins
 
Airports
 
Classifieds
 
Documentation
 
Forums
 
Links
 
CFI
 
Books & Videos
 
Contact Us
 
Login
 
 

Taildragger Related Documentation

Differences

Takeoff

Landing

Keep the stick back!

The Great Debate

Is the Wheel Landing Really Better in a Crosswind?

Whether or not the wheel landing is better or safer in a crosswind is a topic of great debate among the ranks of taildragger pilots. We should all know the pros and cons of and be comfortable with both types of landings. We can then each make our own informed decision as to which one we feel is better. The bottom line is probably this: If one pilot is more comfortable with a wheel landing, then it might be the best landing for that pilot. If another pilot is more comfortable with the full-stall landing, then it is probably the better landing for that pilot.

We invite you to add your comments to the debate. You can do so at the bottom of this page.



I do not believe in general that a wheel landing is better or necessary in a crosswind. Of course, there are specific airplanes in which a wheel landing might be better for all kinds of reasons that are beyond the current scope of this article. One must approach each airplane differently and should consider all options before climbing into a new or unfamiliar airplane. I just don't like those that say, without exception, a wheel landing is mandatory, or must be made, in a crosswind. It's simply not true. I do believe all taildragger pilots should be able to make wheel landings and should keep that skill current because it's good for you. I keep my wheel landing skills current, but in a crosswind I like to make a full-stall landing in the airplanes in which I have experience.

When I make a wheel landing in a crosswind in my Cessna 170A, the amount of rudder work to keep the airplane on the centerline during the landing rollout when the tail is up in the air is amazing. I think the difference is that with the full-stall landing, the tailwheel is down on the runway from the moment of touchdown, and held down firmly throughout the landing rollout (and taxi) with full back yoke. The bite of that tailwheel on the runway makes all the difference. During the landing rollout after a wheel landing, you're like a well-oiled weather vane. The tail is free to swing around from the pressures of the crosswind blowing against it. That's the difficulty of the crosswind right there. It's not the angle of attack of the wings. That does not cause the airplane to turn into the wind. If you're continuing to hold the proper aileron correction, that upwind wing is absolutely not going to fly again. Plus the airplane is at its stalled angle of attack in its three-point attitude, and a stalled wing doesn't kind of start losing its lift, the lift is gone all at once. When you stall the airplane, it doesn't just start descending a little, it drops out from under you. If gusts on the wings are your argument for making a wheel landing, you had better be getting that tail WAY up so the wings have a negative angle of attack because we all (should) know that a lower angle of attack is the way to restore lift to a wing, not visa-versa.

I think the problem might be that a lot of taildragger pilots are sloppy with keeping the stick/yoke all the way back. I see these airplanes rolling down the runway with the elevator flopping around all the time. This behavior would certainly lead to a false belief that the full-stall landing is squirrellier than a wheel landing. The goal is to get that stick/yoke all the way back at the moment of touchdown, and then hold it there. That puts maximum downward pressure on the tailwheel so it gets maximum traction. When I was new in my airplane, I would notice it getting squirrelly during the landing rollout, and I would always notice that I was relaxing the yoke. I would immediately pull it back and the airplane instantly became stable. Folks, you must get in the habit of holding that stick/yoke all the way back at all times from the moment of touchdown. The airplane will not fly off again because the tailwheel is on the ground so the angle of attack cannot increase. You want to keep that tailwheel firmly down so it can do its job.

My dad has owned a Cessna 195 for more than 35 years. He summed it up perfectly the other day when he was telling this guy that he always makes a full-stall landing no matter how bad the wind is. He said sometimes he's fighting it big time in a crosswind, but that ends at moment of touchdown. It's because he's got that tailwheel planted down firmly with the yoke back in his gut. He also had a Stearman for 10 years before the 195, and always made full-stall landings in it. He learned to fly in a T-6 in the Air Force in the 1950's and said they always made full-stall landings. He has over 5000 hours in taildraggers alone and has never ground-looped one.

Jeff Marken
http://www.taildraggers.com


I am glad to see someone else finally arguing for the correct methods. (I am blue in the face) Two things have not been mentioned at all. The first one is keeping the wing DOWN into the wind. I will three point ALL taildraggers in a cross wind. You must keep the wing down as needed to hold a centerline track. If you cannot hold it, it is beyond the limits of the airplane. That simple. You must hold the wing down all the way through touch down, landing tail wheel and "wing down" wheel first then rolling gently to the last wheel as the other wing quits flying. You never take out the wing down correction to land all three wheels at the same time; although this may improve your ground loop skills.

The other thing is, this exact method applies to the takeoff as well. Most takeoffs should be made three point; especially for beginning taildragger pilots or pilots in an unfamiliar airplane. A taildragger is normally designed to set at a stall angle of attack, this is a natural reducer of take-off and landing distance. To learn the visual cues for staying straight during landing one should do three point takeoffs as well. Lift off should be made with the same correction for cross wind as for touchdown. Some airplanes (normally biplanes) need more speed for the ailerons to have controllable effect and you can "nail' it on the mains until you have sufficient control and then pull it off in a manner so not to "skip" across the runway. The transitions from tail high to tail low or the opposite is the most critical period in either takeoff or landing. The gentleman who likes landing tail low and then bring it up on the mains is lucky. This is one of the dumbest and most dangerous things for "most" pilots to try.

I disagree with the 170 guys (and others) who think wheelies give better control. If you need such speed to control it, find another runway more into the wind. Many of use decide we HAVE to get it on rather than go somewhere else. Remember you can land/takeoff diagonally across wide runways and lessen the crosswind component or find a taxi way, ramp, or piece of grass, if you can go no where else.

For the Instructors out there. Remember two things; do not assume the student knows anything (this will keep you alert), you were most likely taught by a student yourself, ( most instructors do not have much experience themselves, you can not teach what you have no experience doing!). Do not assume a 500-1000 instructor has any real experience when most of it is instruction given!

I give this advise not as a expert, but a pilot with many experiences in a large variety of airplanes, and following is just a few; Champs, Chiefs, Tcrafts, Monocoupes, Emeraudes, Glassair, Travel Air, most Wacos, Beech Staggerwing, Howard DGA 15P, 727, Boeing PT17, Stearman C3R, Flybaby, J3, J4, J5, PA 11/ 12/13/17/18/ 20/22/ 32, Vultee V1A, BAE3101, Cessna 120/140/150/152/170/172/180/182/195/210/310/402/421, Beech C90,C99,D50,35,33,A36, Citabria, Stinson, 108/1/2/3/SR7/8/9/10/V77, Fairchild 24W/24R/C8C/C8E/PT 19/23/26 so on and so on. I have had a great life in many wonderful airplanes and I like to help others enjoy it as much as I have. Part of that is doing it correct and safe, and did I say have fun.

Remember. KEEP THE STICK BACK......

Gene Lehman

Gene lost his life in an aircraft crash on October 21, 2003...see http://www.vintagewings.com/ for more details.  We lost a good one!


As promised, I think the following input is consistent with the flavor of your commentary on the great debate. By the way, I think your article is dead on, and I'd be honored to run you through a CFI upgrade so you can help carry on the passing of the torch of flying real airplanes. Now some flavor for your additional comments:

I'm a 3600 hour military aviator with most of my time as an instructor. 1,300 of those hours were flown in the ultimate taildragger, the U-2 Dragon Lady. I also own a Cessna 170A and love flying the classics. Jeff you make and excellent point that the benefit of the type of landing you chose is dependent on the airplane and the conditions. For example, the U-2 is ALWAYS landed from a full stall tailwheel first. With that big wing, bicycle gear, and all the ground effect, the airplane is subject to "refly" from the smallest of gusts if you attempt to "roll her on" with both wheels.

The risk of skipping or contacting the main wheel first is a major hazard if attempting to "wheel borrow" or "roll her on". The result of a skip is a dissipation of energy as the aircraft begins to re-fly in a stalled condition (the skip absorbs the energy but not enough to keep the bird on the deck). A stall above the ground in a high lift aircraft that is light weight can result in a wing drop, and in the case of the "Dragon Lady", a three point landing - not a good thing since one of the points is the titanium skid on the wingtip.

Jeff, some of the points you bring up are essential to successfully landing any taildragger and in particularly they are applicable to the U-2. First, you can't get into too much trouble if the longitudinal axis of your aircraft is tracking straight with no drift and no crab (the art of stick and rudder). Second, "tailwheel bite" is critical in the U-2, and the yoke must be moved aft in a timely manor to transition from the touch down and flying condition of the aircraft to the high speed taxi condition. The big thing with the U-2 is that there is no slack whatsoever in the rigging between the rudder peddles and the tailwheel. The bite is real! Now, I'll tell you where I differ with planes like the 170.

On cement in the 170 I prefer the wheelie. Two reasons, one my control surface is in the air where it does some good, and it is not down in the disturbed flow from the stalled wing/flap area at touch down. I don't consider the "bite" from the 170 tailwheel to be something to put confidence in since it can swivel regardless of your rudder input, should the wind decide to do her work. The second reason I like the wheelie on cement is that it saves on tailwheel tire wear and the constant high speed banging on the spring and rear bulkhead. On the down side, you are right, you must learn to except the fact that you give up your opportunity to use differential braking until the tail is down.

On the subject of being versatile as an aviator, you are once again right on target. I prefer the full stall 3-point landing on unprepared surfaces. I believe the prime reason we still have tailwheel airplanes coming off the factory lines is because of the safety they offer in the bush utility type of flying where you see them the most. The only time I can honestly say that I really scared myself in the 170 was an attempt to do a wheelie on a turf strip near Williamsburg VA on a windy day. The runway dropped away when my airplane got a gust and the nose was pointed downward with the wheels off the ground. A long pause and steady back pressure with a small addition of power saved the day and presented a 3 point save with very little turf left. I thought I'd be shipping out my engine and prop for an inspection and will admit that I got very lucky and also believe that instinct took over at the right moment. So now I always 3 point in a full stall on anything other then cement unless I really know the condition of the turf.

Hope that adds fuel to your fire, and I do hope your readers heed the experience that I've gained through witnessing the blood of other pilot's errors. Great idea to start this project so we can all continue to offer ways to improve our skills as aviators.

Major Greg Lamb, USAF


I'm pleased to have found your page. When I saw the 170 it really grabbed my attention. I am also the proud owner of a 170a, N9547A. When I read your comments on crosswind landings, it was like I wrote them myself. I'm sure my credentials don't match yours, but I have arrived at the same conclusions.

I?m a CFI with about 800 TT and instruct in the Yakima Valley in Washington state. About a year ago I was able to purchase my first tailwheel airplane. My employer, who first taught me to fly, gave me my tailwheel check out. He's a real pro. Before I had purchased my airplane, I had read Mr. Plourde's book cover to cover and was convinced it was the absolute word. But the strange thing was that when we got to the point of my training where we were talking about how much crosswind is too much and when to switch to two point, I was surprised when he disagreed. He said "I'll two point'em on as long as I can". He continued, ?You may be able to two point it on, but at some point you still have to lower the tail and that's when the rodeo starts.".

Well, I'm sure you know what's coming next. After about 60 hours t.w. time, I finally got to test the system inadvertently. While moving my plane to a nearby airstrip to keep from getting fogged in for a trip the next morning, I had elected to depart just ahead of a t-storm for the short 6 mile trip. And you guessed it when I got there the wind was blowing about 20 and was so choppy in the pattern that I could barely keep the wings level. Well, calling on all my composure developed from over 300 hours of flight instruction, I told myself "you can do this just ,two point'er on. It was really amazing, even though I was really sharp at two point landings, it was a whole different scene in this hard of wind. Before I knew it I was recovering from the first of about three wild prangs that I was sure was going to rip out the ponk mod. I was stunned. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go. the second attempt was identical. The sweat was really starting to roll. Then I remembered what Chuck had told me and decided to three point it on. Although I had to really work to keep the wing down at touch down, it seemed almost simple.

Dale Thomas


Though I won't claim expert status, I would like to disagree with both Plourde and your father. I don't think wheel landings are a must do, but in some situations and some airplanes they can be the best tool for the job. For instance, a Maule I fly seems to run out of aileron well before the rudder gives up, which limits it's three-point crosswind ability, but a wheel landing (where the mains are helping the ailerons as the ship slows) can turn a difficult landing into an easy one.

Another point about wheel landings which can, in certain aircraft, lend them an advantage. Once the mains are down, a skilled pilot with good brakes can use braking to assist in directional control. In some aircraft, this is more powerful than tailwheel steering (note that with very little weight on the mains at touchdown, there isn't much braking assist available early in the three point roll out).

And finally there's the time I had a broken tailwheel. We noticed it shimmy just before lifting the tail on takeoff, but didn't think much of it, but upon landing it felt like the back of the airplane was coming off, so I went around, did a wheelie, and kept the tail up until we were almost stopped. Then we shut down, got out and picked up the tail and walked the airplane to a parking spot for repairs. Try that with a nose wheel!

Richard Acuff


Great article. Congratulations on your courage in writing in contradiction to "conventional wisdom."

I have been teaching tailwheel procedures for ten years, stressing that logic dictates the use of three-point landings for most crosswind landings. The buzz-phrase that I ingrain in tailwheel students is, "Tailwheel airplanes have rudder steering and tailwheel steering. You'd better have one before you give up the other.

The use of a wheel landing requires that the pilot be subjected to a moment of vulnerability as the tail quits flying and before the tailwheel contacts the ground. A crosswind gust at that moment could send the tailwheel pilot on an expensive cross-country trip. For the same reason I teach that takeoffs should normally be accomplished by leaving the tailwheel on the ground until the tail flies itself off.

Furthermore, I teach students (tailwheel or otherwise) that any time they hear the words "never" or "always" used in conjunction with flying technique, the speaker should be listened to politely, then ignored and avoided. Any person who teaches that a wheel landing should "always" be used in crosswinds has not personally investigated the physical aspects of this situation, and is simply parroting a worn-out myth of aviation. The opinion of such a limited intellect is not worth consideration.

Your article is the work of a thinking pilot.

Gary Gandy


Your article is right on, and you might also add that even in a wheel landing, the tail must eventually come down, so why use up all that runway delaying the inevitable. Pilots that say you must wheel land in a crosswind are the same as those that say you must get a given airplane on the "step" for optimum cruise performance.

Mike Gillespie


Want some good input? Talk to the guys at Mission Aviation Fellowship (http://www.maf.org). I flew for them in Latin America, and the most common landing for a Cessna 180 or 185 was what we called a tail low wheel landing. Very often I would bump the tailwheel first, but would almost always rock up onto the mains to kill the lift of the wing and allow better braking, as well as prevent bounces. Approach was often with the stall warner beeping. Of course, with a muddy soft field, we kept it threepoint.

Ian Hollingsworth


With over two thousand hours of Beech 18 time and a present owner of a Cessna 180 when it comes to safety I cast my vote in favor of the wheel landing. In a steady state crosswind with an aft C.G. (the most adverse condition) it will be easier to lose control attempting a full stall landing. Leave the tail up as long as possible for enhanced directional control (using brakes as a last ditch measure) in a single engine airplane. A good wheel landing takes more precise planning in the flare and I suspect it is a bit more difficult to master.

Kevin Ayala


To wheel land or not in a crosswind?

It depends on the airplane and the wind speed and direction. With short coupled aircraft, such as a Maule or Pitts, a 3 point is best. With longer aircraft, Stearman, Cub, C-46, wheel landings are best. But more than anything else is what feels best to you. Always go around if it doesn't feel right. A little gas is cheaper than repairing a wing or more. But my opinion and $2.00 might buy you coffee in New York City.

Lars Unkel


I agree with what looks like the majority here; I'll usually three-point a crosswind landing. Where I find the wheelie most useful is in gusty conditions when the wind is more or less down the runway. Having that little extra cushion of flying speed all the way to the ground is really nice if the wind suddenly drops about 10kt as you cross the threshhold -- it really sucks when your full-stall landing unexpectedly occurs several feet up in the air!

Matthew A. Crump


It's a matter of what works for you and your airplane but... to use the three point in a gusting crosswind you need to have an airplane that will maintain good aileron authority at those slow speeds to react to the gusts. For the wheel landings (which is my preferred) it needs to have good powerful brakes to be able to use differential braking, especially at the transition to tail down. I continue to add forward stick until you can't keep the tail up then bring it down so that you have more control and the transition time is minimized at the slowest possible speed. I find that the landings don't scare me as much as the taxi after! I have used this method with Cessna 170, 180, 195, Aeronca 7AC, 11AC, Bucker, Stinson, Supercub, J5 Cub, and various others over the last 25 years and 2300hrs tailwheel.

Dave Clark


'There's more than one way to skin a cat' - and that goes for landing taildraggers.

I cut my flying teeth on c180 and c185 operations in New Guinea,where we were hot/high/humid on short/rough/wet strips.Since then I,ve done ag work,tailwheel instructing ,and bush flying around Australia. My current bird is a c170A. Over 37 years,have done 5000 hrs on t/w.

sealed runways - always a wheeler to protect the tailwheel

over 8-10 kts x/w - usually a wheeler

firm dirt strips/short/rough - tail low wheeler

soft,suspect strips - slow 3 point

I learned a lot from the Missionary Aviation Fellowship and other mission pilots working jungle strips - they are the men!

There's a lot in how you trim the bird insofar as not bouncing it. For wheelers,try not trimming back too much.Leave some weight on the controls so that it's much harder to roundout too far. This way,you only apply small back pressure to do a reduced flare.As the mains 'kiss' , just relax the back pressure and the aircraft will slightly rotate tail up over the wheels,which pins it on due to reduced lift on the main wing. Try it-you should never bounce a wheeler again. This allows you to focus on the important issues...keeping straight and holding aileron into wind to keep the upwind wind 'down' Cheers!

Ralph Burnett


I grew up on our ranch in the northwest corner of Nebraska where the wind conditions varied constantly. I now live outside of Houston, TX. and fly my C-170B every week. Not only does wind but temperature and surface make a difference. Back home when I was rodeoing and really didn't know better, I used a lot a wheel landings just to keep from tearing up my tailwheel on the ranch and various places I really shouldn't of landed. Now, that I am older and "wiser" and fly mainly into asphalt and concrete strips I use full stall landings. Why? Because on a hot day on asphalt with a cross wind, lift is generated from heat and I am a firm believer in trim, flaps and the slower the plane becomes the more aileron is used with a good transition of the yoke to my lap. The key for me on a cross wind landing is an 80mph approach speed with the plane flying straight down the center line. Enough aileron and rudder to maintain that line, PROPERLY TRIM the plane back with a nose high attitude bleeding off the speed and maintaining more aileron as the plane slows down on the runway. It has always worked for me but heck I am just a cowboy that rode rank horses, what's another wild ride when you have been tossed from the best.

Mick VonTour


After reading all the comments on the 2pt vs 3pt issue I am more convinced than ever that we aviators love an argument about flying as much as we love flying itself. I teach tailwheel in an Aeronca 7AC and, in my opinion, there is little difference under most circumstances between the wheelie and the 3pt. However, for me, when the wind gets extremely squirrely, I like the extra control of a 2 pointer in getting the airplane down in the middle of the runway. However, I'll generally use a good bit of judicious braking during the transition to tailwheel on the ground. I think the best technique will be different for different aircraft, depending on how effective the yawing moment created by the rudder at the stall airspeed. Three pointer effectiveness can be increased by pilot technique. A power on three pointer provides increased airflow over the rudder, a more responsive elevator, generally allows for heavy braking, and can give you some control you wouldn't normally have with the power off. The extra landing distance is usually unimportant because of the high headwind component and the fact that most public use runways have 5 to 10 times as much as we need to land anyway.

For takeoffs in strong, gusty winds, I am adamant about keeping the tailwheel pinned on the ground until there is enough airflow over the rudder to assure directional control AND to allow the tail to be lifted enough to put the aircraft in a slightly negative pitch attitude. Flying a tailwheel airplane off the ground in a 3 point attitude in a gusting cross-wind is an accident waiting to happen.

Practice, practice, practice.

K. Edward Bevier
http://www.cirrus.org


I have been flying tailwheel for all of my 27 years. Learned in a Cub and flew everything from a Pitts to my current C170B. I like to wheel land in just about every condition except short fields (say 1,000 ft). I find that if I "plant it" by touching down slightly tail low (or close to level)then push (slightly)forward on the stick, reducing the angle of attack just enough to stop her from flying again. The control surfaces are much more effective with a little airspeed. I have applied full stall landings in just about every aircraft I have flown and found that in severe gusty conditions no matter how far back in your lap the stick is the aircraft can and will start flying again. If you do a 3 point and you are fully stalled say at 45 MPH and a 10 MPH gust hits your aircraft, you are now in a very critical condition. High angle of attack and full flaps, power may not be enough to save your ass. And even if you are lucky enough to react chances are your aircraft is going to hit much harder than you would want. I would much prefer to fly the aircraft onto the runway. If it should start to get scary then I would have enough airspeed that a small throttle adjustment or control surface adjustment would correct things.

The one thing I have noticed about pilots that do only full stall landings is that they are not comfortable with using the rudder. Most want to get the tailwheel on the ground and rely on brakes to direct where the nose points. Just for kicks...

Have any of you tried a nice forward slip down to the runway, kicked the rudder straight and planted the mains on equal sides of the centerline, held the stick forward to the point where the tail landed so softly you barely felt a bump in your seat? If not try it. It's the best feeling that a pilot could have. Especially when the old guys at the airport tell you how they remember(before tricycle gear)when everyone landed that way.

Ralph J. Cobert


Put me in the wheelie category for cross winds. I have most of my tailwheel experience in a Cessna 180 with about a 100 hours in a Cessna 140 for good measure.

Several people have pointed to the "directional stability" added by getting the tailwheel planted on the ground as quickly as possible. If you're in a real crosswind, however, you've got only two wheels on the ground... the tail wheel and the main that is facing into the wind... for my money I'd rather have the two mains on.

A problem I have with trying to do a three pointer in a stong 20 knot cross wind is that of running out of correction at low speeds... when you get her slowed down and the ailerons are losing their authority.... the plane is being blown of course... this sets up the need to "lead" the touch down point.... this is almost always putting side loads on the gear...

I find that by carrying a little more speed, planting it on the mains.. I can get the plane tracking the way I want it...and then complete the landing.

My experience with trying to three point the 180 in the gusty mountains of West Virginia is akin to being like a blowing leaf.... you never really know where you're going to end up....

Mike Plante


Great discussion, folks- guess I'll add some wind of my own. I vote wheelie when it's crosswind pucker time.

In a wheelie I can fly it on in control, with plenty of rudder, differential brake and aileron supporting my argument. I decide when the tail comes down.

I believe that gusty crosswinds are like these heated discussions... You somehow know when your opponent finally needs to pause for a breath. And then,'DOINK' down goes the tail (yes keep the stick ALL THE WAY BACK AND INTO THE WIND) and power off from "wheelie power". At that moment in time, tail down, I am instantaneously a fervent member of the 3-point faction BUT I CHOSE THE MOMENT. If I get short of breath (or brown shorts) before that transfigurement - I'm GONE, climbing out in full control, and ready for another tussle.

I admit that I enjoy "3-point" (really upwind main & tailwheel) landings in LIGHT steady crosswinds up to 10kts direct with my 7KCAB. They can be SO sweet... But if the wind really gets nasty (like on our mountain-top paved runway between snowbanks) I opt for speed, control, and (in case I'm all wrong anyway) instant escape. To those who hang limp in lusty breezes, may the wind goddess be merciful to you- but I respectfully submit that you just don't have the kinetic energy, control authority, or throttle response to counter a REAL crosswind bitch-slap.

Esteemed Slow Ones, if you're really sure, don't bother with tie-downs when you're done flying- Tie the stick back: Voila! Invulnerable! If you ever venture into REAL crosswinds, just suck stick & throttle back- how far can that wind take you anyway (charfing through the rhubarb) I hear it's only noisy and disorienting for a second or two. :) (just kidding y'all)

Rob Craigmyle


A couple points I skipped regarding strong direct crosswind wheel landings: Use the runway direction that puts the wind on the anti-torque side (Right xwind with right-hand engines, left xwind with left-hand single engines). This way, a blip of power answers most gusts smartly. I'll also add the warning that once slowed to tail-down speed, NO MAJOR THROTTLE-JOCKEYING: You are committed to decelerating as straight as possible- DON'T cause any added lift, resulting in a slide and/or lifting of the #@&% upwind wing. Have fun!

Rob Craigmyle


1 more rant & I'll shut up. Listen to the wind- you can hear the change a millisecond before it actually moves the airplane.

Rob Craigmyle


While I agree, to each his own, it would be interesting to know what the statistics could reveal about accidents during wheel landing versus 3-point. Anyway, my C170A prefers I land her in a 3-point - the same way I learned to land taildraggers. I would love to see some statistics.

Dave Siefkas


I was taught to land 'almost any' A/C at stall (unless you are military or airline). I have flown a few conventional-geared A/C - Pitts S-1 and S-2, Extra 230-300, Sukhoi 26, Cap 231, Piper Pacer - Cubs, Cessna 120-195, Chipmunk....etc. I have never had a problem with either a wheelie or 3-point, but have believed in a 'slower is better' approach. A good friend of mine proved this a couple of years ago, crunched his Pitts S-1S doing a wheel landing. I love all the opinions, NO ONE IS WRONG!

Mark W. Dickey


I love it when experts disagree. I can do whatever I want then. :) A Yak 55 doesn't have enough propellor clearance for wheelies take-off or landing. No decision I guess.

tom

© Copyright 2003-2014 by Conventional Technologies, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.
Version 3.5.4266.19640
top of page