Ground Looping

When it all boils down, you just fly the aircraft. It helps to know a wee bit of the science behind it but ultimately you need the stick time. Fly as much as you can, get somebody who knows what they are doing to help you train. It's not that hard.

Steering on brakes is a bit coarse. You do it at taxi speeds OK . Tailwheels are generally steerable with a breakaway function for sharp(minimum radius) turn with brakes. They are set up to caster if you do nothing but are generally steerable by rudder stops or their own cables. Speedy planes with minimum rudder size (and effect)effect, the general technique is to get the tailwheel on the ground and hold it there with full back stick and steer the plane with the tailwheel as soon as possible. At all other times the rudder is the main directional control method.. Wide undercarriage is best for rough strips or anytime you turn fast with the wheels taking a lot of sideload where the plane will tip like a double decker bus at speed round a corner. WW1 planes were often like that requiring you to turn and get the wind behind you rather than lift the upward wing as it weathercocks into wind, This definitely belongs to a past era.. but don't let the upwind wing lift. first, anytime.

If the plane yaws, the sideload on the wheels makes the plane want to tighten the turn. If it's tracking straight or nearly so there's no "into turn" force to speak of. The real issue is that the Mains are forward of the centre of gravity and that set up is directionally unstable as it is also when the nosewheel in a conventional plane takes a major part of the planes mass.. Nothing is that hard is you know what causes the "weirdness". Nev

When it all boils down, you just fly the aircraft. It helps to know a wee bit of the science behind it but ultimately you need the stick time. Fly as much as you can, get somebody who knows what they are doing to help you train. It's not that hard

Agree completely. 'Quickie' tailwheel endos are the likely cause of so many groundloop accidents. I encourage new endorsees to fly another 10-15 hrs 'under supervision' after their basic t/w endo, and this to include as many different strips and paddocks as possible. And all of this before trying the fancy 'wheelers' so much used by aggies. happy days

 

...the standard Maule with vague steering allowed the tail to swing. Spring main landing gear instead of bungees tamed the bouncing.

I’ve flown the boxed bungee gear Maule and wondered if the spring gear would be an ‘improvement’

With the spring gear I would be worried about the tendency of the gear to tuck under in a side ways slide situation - ie, the beginnings of a ground loop ?

.

Any "undamped" spring set up ( steel spring or bungees), recovers the stored energy unrestrained .A Damped oleo is a great step forward. A bit of toe out helps where the track widens with load.. Nev

In working tailwheel aircraft normally you wheel it on and depending on the aircraft and strip sometimes actually pole forward to keep weight off the tailwheel. As usual there's no one way of doing things, whatever works for you.

In smaller TW aircraft the most common technique is to 3 point. Moths, Tigers, Austers, Spitfires, Hurricanes for example. All Navy TW aircraft also used this method. It gives the best STOL result (and allows pilot to pick up a wire with the hook If deck landing).

Larger TW such as bombers did wheelers in a fashion, generally tail down and the venerable DC3 also as I had the excitement to experience nearly 70 years ago.

Yes, I know the C180 brigade and those that fly some of the newer types do wheelers, and some of the air show types too, but they need a lot of good runway comparatively speaking.

What-ever the best way to land a particular aircraft may be I’d suggest practicing all possibilities that the aircraft has to offer - Unless yer flying somebody else’s aircraft. And I’d also suggest practice is what you do by yer-self or with an instructor.

And keep in mind a ground loop can be done as a last resort stopping action if yer fast running out of ‘runway’ and brakes just before that cliff top..?

.

Kaz, watch working AG pilots who fly for a living, they wheel it on. That's anything from Pawnee to 802 Air Tractor. Working all day on super in a Beaver (none left in Oz now on super) you would always wheel it on. A well flown tailwheel low wheel landing takes no more ground than a 3 pointer.

I will agree it's easier to 3 point Austers and Tigers, some of the lighter stuff like Avids and Thrusters are easier to land three point as well.

While I have never flown a Spitfire an Air Tractor 802 with 1700 Shp and narrow track I think would be as challenging, usually wheel them on. There are always if buts and maybe's.

I'm sure hundreds of pilots land on cliff-top runways every day of the week, and have to take evasive measures to avoid falling into the sea.

You wheel them on , you see better and to save taxi time and fuel when you roll up the hill you take off down You'll always use more runway unless you brake (VERY) dramatically and people put them on their nose these days more than they used to. 3 point with the older stuff is still the best unless you have stacks of field length to spare. With Gusts ,rough air etc wheel it on. Ground loop if you are going into a wire fence to prevent being decapitated. Nev

Nev, only about half a knot difference between three point and tailwheel low wheeler, I recon buggar all difference in landing distance between the two. If you come roaring in fly it on with the tail high it will take more runway.

Unfortunately that's not the way a lot do it. A nose high, high power setting approach can be below stall speed and the almost cruise speed fly it on "the ground must be there somewhere" close the throttle and hope technique is the opposite extreme.. . Any wheeler, if you further lower the tail will still fly (balloon) If the tailwheel touches first you are THERE. and she's going pretty slow.. I recall the time someone from Bankstown had over 20 goes at putting an Auster down at District Park Newcastle. He/she actually got to roll the wheels 2 or 3 times but NEVER looked like being able to land it and went back to Bankstown without doing it. Some how the pilot had missed out on being taught how to fly an Auster anywhere near properly because they need very little runway. and usually fly comfortably below 40 knots. Nev

Kaz, watch working AG pilots who fly for a living, they wheel it on. That's anything from Pawnee to 802 Air Tractor. Working all day on super in a Beaver (none left in Oz now on super) you would always wheel it on. A well flown tailwheel low wheel landing takes no more ground than a 3 pointer.

I will agree it's easier to 3 point Austers and Tigers, some of the lighter stuff like Avids and Thrusters are easier to land three point as well.

While I have never flown a Spitfire an Air Tractor 802 with 1700 Shp and narrow track I think would be as challenging, usually wheel them on. There are always if buts and maybe's.

Thruster three point easily - thems fighting words to many pilots ;-P

Note - I am happy to three point every single model of thruster I have flown (except the nosewheel T600) but a few of them are not easy to three point

Kaz, watch working AG pilots who fly for a living, they wheel it on. That's anything from Pawnee to 802 Air Tractor. Working all day on super in a Beaver (none left in Oz now on super) you would always wheel it on. A well flown tailwheel low wheel landing takes no more ground than a 3 pointer.

I will agree it's easier to 3 point Austers and Tigers, some of the lighter stuff like Avids and Thrusters are easier to land three point as well.

While I have never flown a Spitfire an Air Tractor 802 with 1700 Shp and narrow track I think would be as challenging, usually wheel them on. There are always if buts and maybe's.

Hi SP

Ag pilots are a breed apart and yes, a Beaver wheels well as does a Pawnee. And a wheeler gives you a better view of the site of the crash ? A wheeler may also be a better choice in a cross-wind.

But I respectfully disagree that a wheel landing (where the aircraft is still flying at the point of touching) takes no more ground than a properly stalled 3 pointer. The older TW stuff, like mine, was designed to fly out of pretty rough paddocks and landing 3 point put you down at the slowest speed possible, sometimes with nose very high and significant rpm.

If there is only half a knot difference between a wheeler and a 3 pointer, then that wheeler is very much a 3 pointer that didn't quite make it.

I can assume an attitude that lets me wheel it on and continue down the runway for a long way, pulling back on the stick and slowing.

The thing that frightens me is flying with a nose wheel pilot, as they all seem to be going way too fast when they put the wheels on the ground.

If there is only half a knot difference between a wheeler and a 3 pointer, then that wheeler is very much a 3 pointer that didn't quite make it.

I can assume an attitude that lets me wheel it on and continue down the runway for a long way, pulling back on the stick and slowing.

The thing that frightens me is flying with a nose wheel pilot, as they all seem to be going way too fast when they put the wheels on the ground.

The best tricyclists are those who land with and hold the nose off the ground until they have slowed. Too many 3 point then relax and end up with forward elevator pressure with potential to wheelbarrow.

Sorry Nev

i saw your posts just after sending mine. I must say a nicely executed wheeler looks nice to everybody. A nicely executed TW landing is doing it like it ought be done. ?

There are always exceptions ? Sorry to disagree again Kaz ? The likes of a Fletcher needs instant nose down once you have lost elevator/tailplane authority to keep the tail in the air. If you do that it stops shimmy, Fletchers are prone to shimmy with no dampener.

In the olden days a bloke checked me out in a Fletcher, he used to say "Three point all the time", that was for a tricycle not a tailwheel!!, Goes against the grain, touchdown nose high then when the nose starts to drop pole forward and hold pressure to stop shimmy. I agree with your tricycle landings, nose high.

Yes for absolute short as you can, fence at the end, use power, nose high and three point (back to tailwheel again).

As usual there are several ways to do things, none more right than others. As long as we can get the aerial chariots onto the ground without too much damage all good ?

I have a few streakers excuse stories "Seemed like a good idea at the time", one of those involved an Auster, a VERY short paddock and a samurai sword. I'm not sure about the statute of limitations so I might just put that in my version of I learned about flying from that, about 25 chapters so far.........?

The old three point versus wheeler discussion. You cannot categorically say one or the other is best. It depends on the aircraft, runway length / surface, pilot, weather and load to mention a few factors. I only ever 3 pointed a Beech 18 once, whereas the Pitts I would rather three point. Most others I would either three point or wheel depending on many variables. Cessna 180 into Yerranderie (2000’ elevation and 400m with a bend and hump in it) would rather wheel on a gusty day and three point on a calm day.

I would categorically say that a 3 pointer is not good in a nosewheel aircraft. I am assuming those who say it is OK are only referring to taildraggers.

Now this is a wheeler! Done by a pilot who flew it (new) in 1961

happy days,

I would categorically say that a 3 pointer is not good in a nosewheel aircraft. I am assuming those who say it is OK are only referring to taildraggers.

Definitely not good with tricycle undercarriage. I did this when I made the noseleg too long & it meant my stall attitude was the same as 3 pointing. On touch down I pulled back a bit & rose a few feet then down on the noseleg collapsing the leg & my wooden prop turned into hundreds of match sticks.

It took me ages to get out of the habit of pulling the stick back on landing that I always did with GA aircraft. With a stabilator only a tiny amount of back pressure will have the aircraft rise a bit if I hit a bump. With a C172 or PA28 a bounce doesn't matter too much, just hold the attitude & it will settle & land again nicely. My Sierra won't do this & the nose will drop quickly so if I ever bounce it is instant throttle & a go around. When I land now I hold the stick and then move it forward slightly to have positive but not high pressure on the nosewheel. It is only after I have reduced to a fast taxi speed that I pull back and keep the weight off the nosewheel. It is bumpy grass strips that I need to have this technique well mastered. Bitumen is usually not a problem.

So ... the problem here, isn't related to weakly-constructed landing gear?

If the strip is short or rough the stall warning should beep before touchdown. That way your 172 will never wheel barrow.. I don't think any poster so far has suggested one technique for all occasions. and you don't have an inflexible approach either. My Citabria developed a tendency for the tailwheel to shimmy at one stage so rather than destroy tyres I would taxy tail up (till I fixed the problem). Something I would regard as fairly" cowboy "in normal circumstances and certainly NOT recommended close to other aircraft. Nev

I think that nosewheel did well to cop what it did. No nosewheel is designed to take anything like the whole weight of the plane plus some kinetic effect . It's quite likely the occupants were getting knocked around by then as well. Nev