Tailwheel flying

[rframe]

Good friend of mine has 1,000 hours in super cubs, and just recently ground looped one and dinged a wing tip. He said he didn't even know what happened, wasn't an excessive crosswind, nothing unusual, he didn't feel like he stopped paying attention... obviously something started the motion and he wasn't able to either identify it or have the yaw authority to stop it in time... regardless, it's a good reminder that it can happen quickly. Just a reminder to never stop paying attention and never assume it wont sneak up on you.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

tl;dr

Precisely.

Is it GOING to happen today? Probably not.

Is it POSSIBLE? Yes, and we should control for that risk, or accept it.

Or alternatively. You're dangerous unless you have 25,000 hours...

...inverted

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

You can't receive the tailwheel endorsement without demostrating profficiency in wheel landings,,,,,,,,,,

Want to try that again? 61.31(I)1ii-"Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings)"

 

[WacoFan]

Hey, bob Hoover ground looped once.. In a stolen German fighter after escaping a POW camp... Claims he did it on purpose though.

I've seen ground loops, they aren't the biggest thing to fear, usually do more damage to the pilots ego than the aircraft.

You're correct. Like many things, it's a matter of "degree". The line between a "swerve", a "loss of directional control", and a "ground loop" is a matter of semantics. The "events" you've seen and the "events" I've demonstrated are exactly as you describe. They damage the pilot's ego and nothing else. They are a nagging reminder that none of us is perfect and the laws of physics cannot be denied. A reminder that the big aircraft damaging ground loop is out there waiting for the right set of circumstances.

I do think that there are some airplanes that will groundloop more violently than others. The one I have the most experience with is the Howard DGA-15P (note the -15P part...the earlier Howards the DGA-11, 8, 9, 12, and even the DGA-6 which was Mulligan - are all said to be FAR superior in ground handling...but the DGA-15 is different - and also designed primarily after Benny sold the company). But - I've never been in a groundloop in the Howard but you can scan the NTSB reports and see - and they tend to do it violently and fold a gear underneath them...oh - and the 122 gallons of gas? Under the cockpit and pax areas in the belly. I've also heard T-6's will groundloop more violently - but don't know for sure. I do know my grandpa always said that on short final only two airplanes really, REALLY got the hairs on the back of his neck standing up - the Howard and the T-6. And he had a ton of tailwheel time in lots of different airplanes.

 

[jrh]

Oh no. It's not "my saying". It comes from a whole lot of tailwheel pilots with a whole lot of experience who are trying to make a point to people such as yourself. Some are wise enough to get the point and some aren't.

Are those the same whole lot of pilots who say to never run an engine over square?

I've heard all kinds of ridiculous things from high time pilots, and this saying is one of them. Having lots of tailwheel time doesn't make one immune to logical fallacies.

Personally, I think this saying was created by pilots who wanted to protect their ego after they ground looped a plane.

Now, I'm not saying good pilots can't ground loop. Nor am I saying ground loops are always preventable. Obviously anyone can make a mistake. There are also times where mechanical issues cause a ground loop. I wouldn't think less of anyone who'd ground looped.

But the point remains--the same causes for *crashes* also cause ground loops. Human and mechanical error. Both of which can be mitigated through proper risk management. This message is what I stress to pilots, rather than some message of a big bad ground loop monster waiting to leap out and make them randomly lose control for no reason other than it's their turn to have a crappy day.

 

[Houston]

Are those the same whole lot of pilots who say to never run an engine over square?

No. They are the ones who are trying to make a point that some people are wise enough to get and others aren't.

 

[jrh]

...Last place I want to be in a strong crosswind is in a full stall 3 pt landing. Always wheel land with any significant crosswind...

Now you're making the same error the first poster made, on the opposite side of the spectrum

Be very careful when applying the word "always" in aviation.

Your advice might work well for the specific make and model you fly. For others, not so much. I know it wouldn't work in my 140. In a Super D, maybe it would. I don't know.

Whenever flying a new tailwheel plane, especially as a low tailwheel time pilot, get lots of information, and preferably an actual checkout, from a pilot intimately familiar with the specific make and model. They all have their quirks.

 

[jrh]

No. They are the ones who are trying to make a point that some people are wise enough to get and others aren't.

Ok, I'm missing something then. I'm probably not wise enough. What point are they trying to make? I need it broken down further.

 

[N3901C]

Now you're making the same error the first poster made, on the opposite side of the spectrum

Be very careful when applying the word "always" in aviation.

Your advice might work well for the specific make and model you fly. For others, not so much. I know it wouldn't work in my 140. In a Super D, maybe it would. I don't know.

Whenever flying a new tailwheel plane, especially as a low tailwheel time pilot, get lots of information, and preferably an actual checkout, from a pilot intimately familiar with the specific make and model. They all have their quirks.

Just curious does the 140 handle a x-wind landing better in the 3 point attitude over the wheel landing method? I have a Cessna 150 tailwheel and in strong x-winds wheel landing seem to give much better directional control. I have only a few hours in the 140 and never really flown into any real gusty conditions.

 

[Inverted25]

Now you're making the same error the first poster made, on the opposite side of the spectrum

Be very careful when applying the word "always" in aviation.

Your advice might work well for the specific make and model you fly. For others, not so much. I know it wouldn't work in my 140. In a Super D, maybe it would. I don't know.

Whenever flying a new tailwheel plane, especially as a low tailwheel time pilot, get lots of information, and preferably an actual checkout, from a pilot intimately familiar with the specific make and model. They all have their quirks.

your more knowledgable on the 140 than me but I have around 100 hours in one and was taught to always wheel land it in crosswinds and I do. Is that the wrong way to go about crosswinds in a 140?

 

[WacoFan]

Let's split the difference and say this:

In a Luscombe Phantom or a Monocoupe D-145 there are those who have groundlooped and those who will groundloop.

I believe this is an accurate statement because I think that every single Luscombe Phantom that was ever built, and every Monocoupe D-145 that was ever built has groundlooped at least once, sometimes in spectacular fashion.

By making this compromise I think everyone can be happy.

 

[Houston]

What point are they trying to make?

People earlier in this thread got it and expounded on it already.

 

[jrh]

Just curious does the 140 handle a x-wind landing better in the 3 point attitude over the wheel landing method? I have a Cessna 150 tailwheel and in strong x-winds wheel landing seem to give much better directional control. I have only a few hours in the 140 and never really flown into any real gusty conditions.

your more knowledgable on the 140 than me but I have around 100 hours in one and was taught to always wheel land it in crosswinds and I do. Is that the wrong way to go about crosswinds in a 140?

Personally, I don't think the 140 is a good plane to wheel land for much other than kicks and giggles. That's my personal opinion. I'm sure there are 140 pilots who would disagree.

I hold this opinion primarily because of the springy main landing gear. It's an easy plane to bounce on touchdown during wheel landings. The gear is constructed of straight spring steel, rather than a bungy cord system like is used on many other tailwheels, such as Piper products. The gear does not absorb impact forces, it reflects them. If the touchdown occurs with a vertical force much stronger than zero, you'll find yourself airborne again. Pushing forward on the yoke after a bounce, with anything other than excellent timing, has a tendency to increase the bouncing oscillations, rather than damp them out, like some other tailwheel gear designs.

When winds are gusty/turbulent, the chances of a bounce increase that much more, because it's difficult to touch down with the finesse needed to avoid bouncing.

After a bounce, depending on the severity, it's possible to find oneself five feet in the air with low airspeed and not much control effectiveness....exactly where I *don't* want to be when dealing with a gusty, turbulent crosswind.

Landing in a three point attitude and "pinning" the tail to the ground with full aft elevator control significantly reduces the chances of bouncing, and in the event a bounce occurs, within reason, prevents the oscillations from getting too wild.

In my plane, I have a steerable tailwheel as well, rather than a free castoring "shopping cart" wheel. Therefore, pinning the tail to the ground on touchdown gives me instant assistance in maintaining directional control. During a wheel landing, I've seen things get a little hairy when the tail is off the ground, yet the airspeed is low, therefore a strong crosswind is more likely to start the airplane weather vaning into a ground loop.

These are my reasons for preferring three point landings in my plane. YMMV.

 

[jrh]

People earlier in this thread got it and expounded on it already.

All I saw was a comment on humility, which I didn't understand. I take the saying to be anything but humble. It gives pilots a catch-all excuse, after a ground loop, to throw up their hands and say, "Gee, there are those who have and those who will....it wasn't my fault, it sort of just jumped up and bit me" rather than get to the root cause of the ground loop and own up to it. How arrogant is that? Making excuses doesn't help anyone.

Aside from the obvious mechanical reasons for a ground loop, even experienced pilots are susceptible to things like fatigue, lack of currency, etc. You and I both know there is nothing mysterious or magical about tailwheels, but they're very unforgiving of errors. They require a high level of proficiency in both stick and rudder flying, as well as decision making, to maintain a ground loop-free lifetime of flying. But it can be done.

Just curious, what's your background with tailwheels? I couldn't tell from your profile or quick glance at your post history. I'm not trying to call you out for lack of experience, either. Just want to understand where you're coming from.

 

[jafra98]

Want to try that again? 61.31(I)1ii-"Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings)"

Only if you find an instructor that will sign your endorsement without doing wheel landings.......

 

[Taco]

There are two kinds of tailwheel pilots. Those who have ground looped and those who will.

I ground looped once early on in my Cub'in days. I wasn't super experienced and had some gusty cross winds that were way outside of my proficiency level. I started out on a narrow taxi way (main runway was closed, so the taxiway became the runway) and ended up about 100 feet into the grass on the right side of the runway. I made it a point to go out on xwind days and get better after that.

I have since moved away from home, and only fly the J-3 occasionally throughout the year when I go home to visit. As a result, I stick to only wheel landings on pavement and 3-pointers on grass. It has kept me out of trouble. IMHO, a good three point in a crosswind condition is the hardest stick and rudder skills to master in tailwheels.

 

[inigo88]

Personally, I don't think the 140 is a good plane to wheel land for much other than kicks and giggles. That's my personal opinion. I'm sure there are 140 pilots who would disagree.

Meh, I disagree, but I'm not a 140 pilot. Many many tailwheel airplanes have stiff spring-steel main gear, including all the American Champion/Bellanca products (Citabrias, Super Ds, etc). You better believe that you have to finesse the mains onto the ground with almost no sink rate to avoid bouncing 5+ ft in the air, but it is doable.

Pushing forward on the yoke after a bounce, with anything other than excellent timing, has a tendency to increase the bouncing oscillations, rather than damp them out, like some other tailwheel gear designs.

Good god man! This should never be a recommendation in any tailwheel plane! If you bounce, you have two options: Transition to a 3-point and let the airplane settle, or go around. It was burned into my head not to try and push the mains back onto the ground after a bounce because of pilot-induced oscillation, and I've still made the mistake (recently!). Speaking of groundloops (and prop strikes), that's a great way to initiate them.

In crosswinds, I much prefer doing a one-wheel wheel landing and keeping the tail up for as long as possible to maintain rudder authority and directional control while the speed bleeds off. The downside to this is it uses up a LOT of runway. So certainly there are exceptions to the rule when landing on shorter runways, and I wouldn't try to wheel land on anything shorter than about 2700 ft (don't ask why I chose this number so precisely ).

Could be different on the C140, but in a 7ECA/7GCAA the tailwheel is spring-loaded to the rudder, and calling it completely "steerable" would be a bit generous. I also don't like landing in a "tail low" attitude, because that was burned into my head during training as being the least rudder-effective and most unstable attitude you can be in. I'd rather be 3-pointed down with the tailwheel on the ground, or up on the mains with the fuselage parallel to the ground, rather than have the tailwheel 6" to 1' above it. I've heard the reason everyone hates the T-6 and ground loops it so much is because of this - it's tail-heavy and always wants to be in a tail-low attitude.

I think what you're talking about is the "two-point" landing, where you land the upwind main and the tailwheel, with the downwind main still in the air. I've heard that's a doable and appropriate crosswind technique (I've barely tried it so I can't speak from experience), but if you try to do a true three point in a gusty crosswind without getting the upwind wing down, you're going to side load and swerve all over the place... and probably not have much directional control to save yourself as the airplane tries to weather-vane (especially in a Citabria where those tailwheel/rudder springs only help you so much). Again, ask me how I know.

 

[Houston]

All I saw was a comment on humility, which I didn't understand.

I sensed that.

 

[Dan208B]

As suspected I stirred the pot a bit much. My thoughts on this really come from what I've observed. I have about 800 hours of tailwheel time and I'm scared to death to do anything other than a 3-point. I've personally witnessed 5 ground loops. All resulted in aircraft damage. And every single one lost control during a wheel landing as the aircraft was slowing through the range where you have limited rudder control and the tailwheel isn't down yet. It is probably a bit drastic of me to say it shouldn't be done, but I won't do it in my airplane for a while and without some very good instruction. On that note, someone made mention of larger aircraft. I have about 100 hours divided between Beech 18s and DC-3s. While I believe it's possible to land these airplanes in a 3-point attitude, that isn't optimal because a hard landing could damage aft fuselage structure in airplanes that heavy. The difference in my mind is that if I were to lose control for some reason, I have differential power to help with recovery. On that note though, the original post I made was referring more to light, short-coupled airplanes. The bigger, heavier airplanes like to track straight. My pacer seems dead set against going straight without some effort on the pilot's part...

 

[N3901C]

As suspected I stirred the pot a bit much. My thoughts on this really come from what I've observed. I have about 800 hours of tailwheel time and I'm scared to death to do anything other than a 3-point. I've personally witnessed 5 ground loops. All resulted in aircraft damage. And every single one lost control during a wheel landing as the aircraft was slowing through the range where you have limited rudder control and the tailwheel isn't down yet. It is probably a bit drastic of me to say it shouldn't be done, but I won't do it in my airplane for a while and without some very good instruction. On that note, someone made mention of larger aircraft. I have about 100 hours divided between Beech 18s and DC-3s. While I believe it's possible to land these airplanes in a 3-point attitude, that isn't optimal because a hard landing could damage aft fuselage structure in airplanes that heavy. The difference in my mind is that if I were to lose control for some reason, I have differential power to help with recovery. On that note though, the original post I made was referring more to light, short-coupled airplanes. The bigger, heavier airplanes like to track straight. My pacer seems dead set against going straight without some effort on the pilot's part...

I have like 1000+ hours of tailwheel time and love wheel landings and strong crosswinds, but you get to fly DC-3s and Beech 18s so now I'm super jealous lol. That is awesome though are you typed on the DC3? The DC3 and the Beech 18 are definitely on my planes I want to fly list.