Tamed by the Tailwheel

In the Maule, the tailwheel first thing eliminates bounce completely, at
least if you airspeed is close to right. But it's always seems sloppy
to me. If you can tailwheel first, you can 3 point it. If you TW first
on purpose all the time, when you miss, you are going slam it on a few
times. Why do that?

dave wrote:
Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
lift. Is this significant? I suppose that if the landing speed is as
slow as it should be, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like
landing as slow as reasonably possible. Less wear and tear on the tires
and it's more fun.

Dave
68 7ECA
vincent p. norris wrote:

Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.



There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.

vince norris

wrote:

Per your technique of 0 flap and 65 mph, what is happening while you
dissipate the additional speed?

I do the same in my Maule. The 65 mph is the approximate speed at touchdown, but
it may be as low as 60. The "three-point" is actually the upwind main and the
tailwheel. The speed is dissipated during rollout. Usually the downwind main
stays off the ground for a few seconds. I don't touch the brakes until it's
down. My usual airports have 2,000 to 3,000' runways, so there's no panic if I
use half of it.

Is it not possible to land slower using
judicious power to touch down well under control, and with little
flying speed to get rid of once you are firmly planted with all 3?

When you get right down to it, touching down at 60 to 65 mph with no flaps in a
Maule *is* touching down with little flying speed to get rid of. Stall speed
with 0 degrees of flaps is about 55 mph indicated (a bit more with higher
weight), so 65 is a pretty good target speed IMO.

Maules are not fond of wheel landings, especially during crosswind conditions. I
have landed mine with 40 degrees of flaps in a 15 knot direct crosswind. I tried
it once in a 20 knot crosswind at Luray Caverns and was unable to do it with
flaps. John Price and I tried to get down in 28 knots once, and couldn't do it
with no flaps.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Mauledriver, I don't know why you would do that but I don't see how you
could land with the nose so high that the mains slammed down. Have you
done that? At any rate, I do my best to three point it. Sometimes the
tailwheel hits a fraction of a second before the mains, sometimes it's
mains first and sometimes it's all three at the same time. Lately, it's
been one main and the tailwheel. Seems like I've been landing with a
crosswind a lot lately.

Dave
68 7ECA

Maule Driver wrote:
In the Maule, the tailwheel first thing eliminates bounce completely, at
least if you airspeed is close to right. But it's always seems sloppy
to me. If you can tailwheel first, you can 3 point it. If you TW first
on purpose all the time, when you miss, you are going slam it on a few
times. Why do that?

dave wrote:

Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
lift. Is this significant? I suppose that if the landing speed is as
slow as it should be, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like
landing as slow as reasonably possible. Less wear and tear on the
tires and it's more fun.

Dave
68 7ECA
vincent p. norris wrote:

Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.




There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.

vince norris

dave wrote:

Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
lift. Is this significant?

With full flaps in a Maule, you can drag it in tail-low with power. When that
little wheel hits, the mains will drop, bounce once, and you're glued to the
ground. You'll be doing something like 40 to 45 mph when you touch down. If your
engine hiccups once the speed gets real low, you're going to hit hard; the plane
will stall almost immediately.

You can also do an approach at a bit higher speed and bring the tail down to
touch when the mains are still several inches in the air. Again, the ground roll
will be impressively short. The problem with this to me is that you will be
pretty much at power-off stall attitude. If you are six inches higher than you
think you are when you bring the tail down that last little bit, it'll be
uncomfortable.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:02:18 GMT, Maule Driver
wrote:

What do I mean
by squirrelly? On grass, it hops when rolling on the mains.

Gosh, the Cub does that! Every once in a while, in fact, a bit of
gasoline will splash on the windscreen. I minimize it by keeping the
tail low.

When I flew the Husky at Andover NJ, Damian Delgaizo insisted that I
fly it off the ground three-point, but I hate to do that with the Cub.
The engine is 65 hp, and I can't see over the nose!

Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:02:18 GMT, Maule Driver
wrote:

Anyway, the angled TO and Landing in xwinds is good stuff that I also
advocate. The centerline is nice but into the wind is better.

I've often thought of doing this, since the airstrip must be 200 feet
wide. Alas, so many centerline pilots have used it over the years that
it's rough in the middle, so I land to either side.

(Indeed, it also has a hill two-thirds of the way down 02, on the east
side, so if one lands long or fast it's best to keep the the west. So
the 200 foot-wide runway in practice comes down to 60 feet


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Cub Driver wrote:

Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?

The CFI who checked me out in the Maule recommended this when taking off with a
strong crosswind. I don't have the visibility problem you do in a Cub, but I
found that the Maule will usually drift sideways immediately after the wheels
leave the ground if I try a 3-point takeoff. This is uncomfortable if the mains
actually come off first or if the plane lifts and then touches down again.
Sometimes the plane will start to drift before leaving the ground when the
pressure on the wheels gets light. Because of this sort of thing, I no longer
make this sort of takeoff.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Cub Driver wrote:

Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?

The CFI who checked me out in the Maule recommended this when taking
off with a
strong crosswind. I don't have the visibility problem you do in a
Cub, but I
found that the Maule will usually drift sideways immediately after
the wheels
leave the ground if I try a 3-point takeoff. This is uncomfortable if
the mains
actually come off first or if the plane lifts and then touches down
again.
Sometimes the plane will start to drift before leaving the ground
when the
pressure on the wheels gets light. Because of this sort of thing, I
no longer
make this sort of takeoff.

A three-point takeoff can rip the life out of the tailwheel
tire. It's too small for that sort of speed. We usually teach newbies
the tail-low takeoff, where the wheel is allowed to rise as speed
increases, and then elevator is fed in to keep it just off the
pavement. The airplane (Citabria) will lift off when it's ready and
it'll already be in the climb attitude.
Tail-up for crosswind to to keep it on the ground until there's
enough speed to pull it positively clear.

Dan

You need to get out that POH and do the weight and balance
figuring for that airplane, especially if solo. It's easy to be out the
front of the envelope in these airplanes.
We use 40 lbs of ballast in some cases to get the CG legal and safe.
Dan

I'm sure you have a typo or 2 here - just want to be clear... You are
saying that the Maule likes to handle xwinds with less or no flaps - right?

My xwind high point was Key West. 30G35 directly across. I cranked in
full forward slip controls turning final. Turns out to be beyond the
ability of the rudder to maintain a proper forward slip. But even with
the relatively clear boundaries of Key West airport, the wind gradient
reduced the xwind velocity just enough to allow me to get it straight
during the flare. (By backup plan was a return to my departure point
where I had an into the wind runway). Did a 270 to exit the runway.

I was pretty proud of the landing. Tower was impressed too. Then they
told me that a Malibu groundlooped earlier that day and damaged the
gear. I'm sorry that I smiled.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

speed IMO.

Maules are not fond of wheel landings, especially during crosswind conditions. I
have landed mine with 40 degrees of flaps in a 15 knot direct crosswind. I tried
it once in a 20 knot crosswind at Luray Caverns and was unable to do it with
flaps. John Price and I tried to get down in 28 knots once, and couldn't do it
with no flaps.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.