Wheel Landing a 180

[King Brown]

I'm with dgapilot/turner opinions. Never felt a need for wheel landings.

[180Marty]

Never felt a need for wheel landings

I fly off a narrow airport that has trees about 50 feet away along the sides with a gap or two. When the wind is blowing across it must roll and I bet you could not make a slow 10 foot pass above the runway and not be up and down. I wouldn't think of trying to stall it on. With my luck I might touch down just to be shot 20 feet in the air just to be dropped again.

[SJ]

Both landing types have their application, or one of them would not exist. Most people who do 3pt landings exclusively don't do 3pt take offs exclusively, they do wheel take offs (i.e. tail up, mains on). While one might argue that doing one thing well is better than being average at several things, it's worth practicing and knowing 3pt take offs and landings, and wheel take offs and landings. If you fly long enough to enough different places you will encounter a situation where all four of these techniques will be useful.

In my opinion...

sj

[texmex]

My observation.

My Dad, who has 30,000hrs always does tail down take-offs. And mostly does wheel landings.

Me.

Flying a C180 is a hobby for me, but I let the tail rise when it's ready without pushing the stick forward, and practice both styles of landings. If it's gusty, wheel it on.

[mvivion]

FYI,

Compare book stall speed with 20 flaps vs stall speed with 40 flaps. Not much difference, but LOTS of difference in drag.

MTV

[stewartb]

I'm guessing you meant 40*? It isn't always about stall speed. I can fly my final leg a lot steeper with flaps 40 than flaps 20 and maintain a much better attitude while doing it. The transition from light-on-the-mains to heavy is as simple as dumping flaps. Like I said earlier, minimize the horizontal component. It makes life much easier. Eddy should experiment with making his turn to final higher than normal and flying his final leg at 65mph with full flaps. Wheelers are easier it that configuration. Drop in, round out, push the yoke forward with the first touch. Retract flaps and the tail drops. Flight over.

[Rob]

FYI,

Compare book stall speed with 20 flaps vs stall speed with 20 flaps. Not much difference, but LOTS of difference in drag.

MTV

Hi Mike. I *think* you meant flaps 20 vs flaps 40. If so, I'd say yep.... and THAT is why I am primarily a full flapper all the time. Because that extra drag allows me to carry a touch more power without a speed or pitch penalty. More power means more tail. A good thing when I've got it all hanging out.

YMMV

Take care, Rob

[Rob]

Whoops, doing this on a phone is sloowww... I see SB thinks similarly...

[mam90]

Glad I didn’t know this debate existed back when I was working 180’s and 185’s for a living..... used both “types” of landings on a regular basis.... didn’t make sense to make a wheel landing on a soft beach. Likewise didn’t seem sensible to beat the tail up unnecessarily on a really rough strip. If memory serves me, I could land as short as I needed to either way.. but that’s just me....

[Eddie Foy]

I agree with everything but the last statement. In a taildragger, the flight ain't over till you are tied down. I noticed yesterday that taxiing with a 10 kt left cross took full right rudder. And yes, the gear is aligned spot on.

I'm guessing you meant 40*? It isn't always about stall speed. I can fly my final leg a lot steeper with flaps 40 than flaps 20 and maintain a much better attitude while doing it. The transition from light-on-the-mains to heavy is as simple as dumping flaps. Like I said earlier, minimize the horizontal component. It makes life much easier. Eddy should experiment with making his turn to final higher than normal and flying his final leg at 65mph with full flaps. Wheelers are easier it that configuration. Drop in, round out, push the yoke forward with the first touch. Retract flaps and the tail drops. Flight over.

[stewartb]

That's an old cliche. You can taxi a Skywagon in 30-35 mph winds with no worries. You'll find that while Cubs can do cool stuff in benign conditions? Skywagons can go out when the Cubs stay home.

[mvivion]

Yes, sorry, I meant compare 20 flaps to 40 flaps. My POINT was the stall speed difference, which was emphasized in an earlier post, is negligible. But, drag difference is huge.

And, there are times in my experience, when LOTS of drag is a negative. Yes, drag helps you descend at a steeper gradient. That's not the point. That drag can also mess with you in GUSTY conditions. There are winds, and there are gusty winds. And, tons of drag are not necessarily the best in SOME conditions.

Point is, Cessna gave you the option to use all the tools, meaning you can use whatever flap setting you like, and there are times when 20 flaps works really well.

MTV

[Eddie Foy]

And what cliche would that be? Even if you can taxi in those winds you still have to do some of that pilot stuff.

That's an old cliche. You can taxi a Skywagon in 30-35 mph winds with no worries. You'll find that while Cubs can do cool stuff in benign conditions? Skywagons can go out when the Cubs stay home.

[BC12D-4-85]

One condition taught me (but may be not the same experience for others) not to use full flaps in a crosswind....like when on wheel skis. I prefer to crab into the crosswind then when near earth straighten out, drop the upwind wing slip very briefly while planting the upwind tire or ski if down. In that condition I want full rudder control to maintain direction and nothing messing with the airflow over the stabilizer and elevator to suddenly change the deck angle.

Flaps and skis can change things quickly and even brief slips on wheel skis with full flaps can be an eye opener and are/were placarded against. I could never get 40 to work as well as 10-20 flaps in that configuration. And if going around due to a balked landing 20 flaps is one less item to deal with.

Gary

[JohnnyR]

I'm with dgapilot/turner opinions. Never felt a need for wheel landings.

What kinds of strips are you flying to/from? Many of us are landing in tight, short, bouncy areas that require keen reference visibility upon landing, plus preservation of the tailwheel.
Bounce a tailwheel along on some of the river bars, etc. at landing speeds and see how long it lasts...

[bob turner]

I often raise the tail after a 3-point landing, although not in 180s. I have a lot of respect for the 180, and it would kill me to take one into conditions where damage was likely.

And yes, tailwheels don’t like rough stuff. We have steel plates across a main taxiway, and twice I have had tailwheel flats there! I go for a couple years with no flat tailwheels, then I get one right after another. Yeah, I keep them at 50 psi.

[Eddie Foy]

I want to thank everyone who replied. 0.7 today and 5 landings. All three pt, without landing tailwheel first, near full stall and acceptable. 10 kt crosswind. It's coming. 12 hours now and more comfortable.

The Horton STOL and VGs don't want to give up.

[krines]

Had 1000 hours in my 170 and then got a cub. Wheel land most of the time. Was astounded at how much time it took me to get up to snuff in the cub. Different stall speeds. Different attitudes. Different head height above ground. Oh and where the hell are the brakes on this thing. Never came close to looping the 170 but the cub took me on an excursion into the grass pretty quick. Took a while but eventually I figured it out. Have fun.

[King Brown]

JohnnyR, I have 6,000 hours mostly 180-185s on wheels and wheel-skis on dirt 800-1000 foot strips, my home strip same with wild winds on the coast. Proper descent, crabbing to touch down, familiar with full aileron and rudder, no-sweat crosswinds with white caps on the water. Planting within 30 feet or go-round was necessary on home strip, and I think experience with full rudder/aileron, full confidence in their use, is key. No dings 62 years full-stall landings. There's no dirt in a 180-185 if you're paying attention.

[JohnnyR]

I hear ya, but I'm talking about the kind of surface that encourages one to keep the tail off the deck until slowest speed possible - as in off-airport w/ rocks, gopher holes, driftwood, big washboard, etc. Things that rip tw’s off or create destructive stress on airframes. That stress can be moderated by rolling across on big mains until moving slowly enough that the tailwheel comes down to encounter much reduced energy forces.

Not saying you're wrong for where you are. 3-pt or wheelie - just depends on the mission. A pilot should be proficient in both to have the tools in the toolbox for when they are needed. If you don't "need" the wheel landings, then good on ya.

The usage of big fat squishy tires has changed things for the better for off-airport landings. Why go backwards in capability and self/aircraft preservation by whacking a small, vulnerable tailwheel through hell just because three-points are how you’ve always done it? (Unless you’re going to stay on mild/moderate surfaces, then have at it!). River bar below is mild when done on 29's and wheeled on, but even these small stones drag considerably if a stock tail is let down too soon.

JohnnyR, I have 6,000 hours mostly 180-185s on wheels and wheel-skis on dirt 800-1000 foot strips, my home strip same with wild winds on the coast. Proper descent, crabbing to touch down, familiar with full aileron and rudder, no-sweat crosswinds with white caps on the water. Planting within 30 feet or go-round was necessary on home strip, and I think experience with full rudder/aileron, full confidence in their use, is key. No dings 62 years full-stall landings. There's no dirt in a 180-185 if you're paying attention.

[Eddie Foy]

I am going to mount one of my GoPros and watch the tailwheel during both types of landings. Should be interesting.

[Alex Clark]

My heavy J model 180, with Sportman and VGs, seemed to only like 3 points. I could force it to wheel-land, but it was requiring a bit more speed and she did not want to track worth a darn.

I finally figured out ( along with other odd things I inherited) that my main gear were sorely misaligned. A lot. It was not bad on beaches or loose gravel. But in pavement it was far from normal. After re-aligning everything it acts just like any other heavy tailwheel A/C.
Although I will say that my buddy's 1959 C-180 wheel lands like a dream. Mine it more like a wheelbarrow full of potatoes.

[Eddie Foy]

Mine was also way off. Now spot on. Glass beads that are used for blasting works great between the plates. Used the Grove technique and a bit of trigonometry.

My heavy J model 180, with Sportman and VGs, seemed to only like 3 points. I could force it to wheel-land, but it was requiring a bit more speed and she did not want to track worth a darn.

I finally figured out ( along with other odd things I inherited) that my main gear were sorely misaligned. A lot. It was not bad on beaches or loose gravel. But in pavement it was far from normal. After re-aligning everything it acts just like any other heavy tailwheel A/C.
Although I will say that my buddy's 1959 C-180 wheel lands like a dream. Mine it more like a wheelbarrow full of potatoes.

[n40ff]

3-points rule IMO but of coarse there are always exceptions such as landing on bolder fields and other conditions where tail wheel damage is an issue......there are always exceptions..............

[hotrod180]

Both landing types have their application, or one of them would not exist. ….

In my toolbox, I have end wrenches, box wrenches, crescent wrenches, rachets, & vice grips--
they all have their uses.
Same with techniques.

[krines]

Broke a tailwheel leaf spring off on my 170 once after a wheel landing thus leaving me stranded out in the middle of nowhere. Got real lucky getting me and plane out before the blizzard hit. Fortunately the rudder was not ripped off. I do everything now to protect my tailwheel.

[Dave Calkins]

Some folks here I have held in high regard are not using the wheel landing "tool".

Am I missing something?

[SuperClub]

I always find this fascinating, because no matter how many years or hours someone has, they certainly have varying opinions on landing a tailwheel airmachine.

Every pilot I've trained in a tailwheel has had to be proficient in both 3 point and wheel landings. I ask them at the end which type of landing gave them more of a feeling of positive control in gusty/crosswind conditions, and the vast majority have favored the wheel landing. That's always been my experience, plus my tail tires and springs last longer than most..

I also have noticed that not a lot of people want to spend the time to learn to do consistently nice wheel landings, but I remember as a kid watching the North Air pilots wheeling the DC-3s onto the runway in Whitehorse, and feeling like that was the most beautiful thing in aviation.

[bob turner]

I do wheel landings - once or twice with a brand new tailwheel pilot, then only after the full stall is mastered. There are occasional gusty conditions where I use a wheel landing to plant the thing, but I still have to get the tail on the ground somehow. My limit in a J3 is around 22 knots direct, and if it isn’t gusty, I can do it 3-point.

[kirkangus]

Back when I flew it, I would milk off the airspeed and then add power to stabilize it to either low tail or level wheel landing. Hold the power in as necessary to keep straight with rudder,,,I saw it ground looped in high speed 3 point roll out.

Sent from my SM-G960U using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[texmex]

All right. I'm curious as to everyones technique of landing a C180 at night. Does it change?

I haven't revisted night circuits in the C180 since I purchased my, new to me aircraft.

I was proficent in them once, 30 years ago. But my memories as a 19 year old, learning to fly at night and doing circuits with my impatient Dad yelling are vivid. Almost nighmare-ish. Back then, as a student pilot our family C180J was a beast.

I remember having about 4,000 hours in the right seat of the B737-300 and discovering the joys of rolling on the aeroplane in the flare. Get into the flare, and push forward. I thought I discovered a fool proof method of landing. It was working beautifully, until it wasn't. If you rolled it on too high a huge rate of descent developed and it thumped. (usual stuff, Captain laughing his head off, girls down the back telling me they didn't wear a sports bra to work)

I feel 3 pointers are the same. If your in bad light, bad vis and landing on a goat track and your 3 pointing your setting yourself up for trouble. If you flare too high a big rate of descent will develop and you'll become a passenger rather then the pilot.

[texmex]

A beautiful thing. Taken in the late '80s.

[Eddie Foy]

At night in a fighter, I killed the sink, held the attitude, retarded the power and let it land. Except in the A-7D. Being a Navy jet, you set 17.5 units AOA and drove it into the ground. Flare to land, squat to pee!

In an airliner, the talking radar altimeter was de bomb!

All right. I'm curious as to everyones technique of landing a C180 at night. Does it change?

I haven't revisted night circuits in the C180 since I purchased my, new to me aircraft.

I was proficent in them once, 30 years ago. But my memories as a 19 year old, learning to fly at night and doing circuits with my impatient Dad yelling are vivid. Almost nighmare-ish. Back then, as a student pilot our family C180J was a beast.

I remember having about 4,000 hours in the right seat of the B737-300 and discovering the joys of rolling on the aeroplane in the flare. Get into the flare, and push forward. I thought I discovered a fool proof method of landing. It was working beautifully, until it wasn't. If you rolled it on too high a huge rate of descent developed and it thumped. (usual stuff, Captain laughing his head off, girls down the back telling me they didn't wear a sports bra to work)

I feel 3 pointers are the same. If your in bad light, bad vis and landing on a goat track and your 3 pointing your setting yourself up for trouble. If you flare too high a big rate of descent will develop and you'll become a passenger rather then the pilot.

[Eddie Foy]

It is a handsome plane.

A beautiful thing. Taken in the late '80s.

[mvivion]

As far as training a new to the airplane pilot in the 180, and especially the 185, I always start them with 3 point landings. Once they're proficient AND consistent with those, then we start working on wheel landings. Personally, I nearly always wheel land these airplanes, at least in part because to me a good wheel landing is harder to pull off than a 3 point. Not by a huge amount, but enough that I prefer to practice the tail low wheel landing.

But, in ANYthing besides pavement, it's a tail low wheel landing. At 5 foot 8 and shrinking, I can't see much out the front of these things in three point attitude. So, anyplace without nice side markings/runway lights, I want that tail up so I can see what's coming at me.

But, as others have said, I make sure anyone I train in these planes is competent at both types of landing. Then, they can decide what works best for them. Same shoe doesn't fit every foot.

MTV

[BC12D-4-85]

There is something in favor of adequately seeing the LZ and its obstacles.

Gary

[bob turner]

Rolling on a 737 - hah! My first week on the line I was doing that successfully - then my favorite captain told me he'd kill me if he ever saw me relax back pressure just at touchdown, and I never again could bring myself to "roll it on."

Interesting story about that guy - most new F/Os were scared of him. He tried to give me a hard time - I gave it right back to him, and we became fast friends. One day he said "Which legs do you want?" I said "All of them!" He gave them to me - several in the left seat. Great fun!

[stewartb]

Question. In a falling leaf stall are you guys in a 2 or 3 point attitude?

[mvivion]

Question. In a falling leaf stall are you guys in a 2 or 3 point attitude?

Both, or neither, because many airplanes oscillate nose up and down some in that mode.

MTV

[cubdriver2]

6:40 into video

https://youtu.be/tBD7QhVC3rM

Glenn