Okay. What are the points in a landing - the number of places you touch the ground or the number of times you bounce? Seriously. What are these points?
The points refer to how many parts of your body touch the ground, I believe.
A four point landing would be falling like a cat and landing on all fours.
A three point landing I think would mean that you’re likely to have a broken wrist or else you landed on both hands and one leg.
Colour me stupid, but isn’t “three-point landing” an aviator term ? In which case, obviously, the point is touching down with all three (sets of) wheels at the same time.
Or have I just been whooshed ?
S. Norman
On a small plane, it’s the two strut wheels and the nose wheel.
On the one hand, it would mean you had come in level to the ground, which sound perfect.
Theoretically, there is less stress on everything, including less risk of weak tires exploding, if the stresses are divided evenly.
But it is not recommended!
The thing you try for is the two struts, then the nose.
This gives the struts a chance to even out first.
If one strut wheel hits first, then the nose, the plane will twist in that direction until the second strut comes down, and this is dangerous.
It’s from parachuting. If you try to land on both your feet you can break things (like ankles.) You try to purposely fall over when you land so you hit with feet then kind of fold up and hit your butt. I don’t remember if it is supposed to be the third or forth point of contact. Mostly relevant to military jumps where the chute is designed for less drag so you hit hard and fast. This limits your time that people can shoot at you in the air. This is supposed to be against the Geneva Convention IIRC. But if I had a bunch of bad guys parachuting on me I don’t think I’d let the rules get in the way. I kind of wonder why we have a Geneva Convention. It seems to me that the best way to deter war is to make fighting against you as horrifying as possible.
John
Actually, it’s the main gear and the tailwheel. Three-point landings refer to landings made in aircraft with “conventional” landing gear; i.e., a tailwheel (or skid). The idea is that the winds stop flying at the instant the three wheels simultaneously contact the ground. This is a “perfect” three-point landing. Often however, conventionally geared aircraft make “wheel landings”. In a wheel landing, the aircraft touches down on the main gear first, then lowers the tail.
Three-point landings are discouraged in “tricycle gear” (i.e., “nosewheel”) aircraft. Remember, the idea is that the wing stops flying and that’s why you are on the ground. If a tricycle gear aircraft makes a “three-point” landing, the wing has a lower angle of attack that it would have if the pilot flares properly. This means that the aircraft either “thunks” down on the runway, or it lands with flying speed. Neither is desireable.
“Three-point landing” = Landing a taildragger.
Okay, Johnny L.A., if you don’t mind clearing up a thing for me: If a plane has a tailwheel, the center of gravity is behind the main gear, right ? So wouldn’t another argument for trying to get the tailwheel on the ground be that you want to make it harder for the tail to move sidewards and have the rest of the plane “overtake” the main gear ? (I’m phrasing this poorly, I know).
[hijack]
Good thing for you that there’s absolutely no rule against shooting airdropped troops while they’re descending. They are combattants and can be fought.
Bailed-out aircrew, OTOH, have the same status as shipwrecked sailors and are to be given a chance to surrender.
The Geneva convention isn’t primarily about making war more “fair” or easier on the soldiers, but about protecting non-combatants: Wounded, POWs, medics, civilians, shipwrecked, hospitals etc.
[/hijack]
S. Norman
Some conventionally geared aircraft are “short coupled”, meaning that the fuselage aft of the CG is relatively short. Short coupled aircraft and aircraft with narrow main gear sometimes have a tendency to swap ends, or “ground loop”. In gusty conditions (and I’m a helicopter pilot, so I’m doing a little guessing here) it would be good to keep the tail off of the ground. If the tail is in the air, it has flying speed. If it has flying speed, then you have directional control; very important in a crosswind. It’s often said that a taildragger isn’t “landed” until you’ve tied it down at its parking spot.
At some point during the landing the tail surfaces become ineffective. If you have a steerable tailwheel, you have directional control when the tail is down. But many (most?) taildraggers have lockable tailwheels (locks in straight position) or castering tailwheels (spins around like the wheels on your chair). Steering, then, would be done with differential braking.
Tricycle aircraft on the other hand, have directional control of the tail until the nose gear touches down. Most trikes have steerable nosewheels (although the Grumman AA-5 I flew in jr. high used diff. braking). That, and the lower deck angle that lets the pilot see ahead of him, makes it easier to maneuver a “nosedragger” on the ground. Even though taildraggers are more efficient (less drag from the tailwheel than from a nosewheel), the ease of ground handling made the trikes more attractive to the flying public.
What you are referring to is called a ground loop. It is when a taildragger does exactly what you describe during ground handling. High speed ground loops were extremely common back when taildraggers ruled the world of aviation. This is why most small planes now use a tricycle gear configuration. Pilots trained only on a tricycle gear planes (like myself) would probably not be able to successfully handle one of these taildragger beasts on the ground.
However, the only thing that I would be more scared of than a ground loop is the solution that you describe. Forcing the tiny tailwheel onto the ground before the main gear touched down practically guarantees an accident. You would lose all stability and directional control. Remember, the tail needs to be able to move in order to control the direction of the aircraft. I do not mean just the rudder, I mean the entire tail controls the aircrafts direction. Additionally, the tailwheel is usually just a small caster that could not support the force of a sudden impact to the ground like you describe.
- thanks, fellas!
Hey, a topic I know something about! I learned to fly in a Cessna 150 (nosewheel). Later, I learned to fly a Citabria (taildragger). What’s been said about three points is true about the taildragger landings. “Three point” is trying to put all wheels on the ground at nearly the same time. A “wheel” landing is flying the main gear onto the ground, then picking the tail up a bit, and lowering it later.
But some of you are missing the most important thing about the tail being up/down during the landing.
Somewhat true, in gusty air the reason it’s good to get the tail off the ground is that in that attitude, the main wings have no angle of attack, and thus not enough lift to get you airborne should a gust come along. That’s the main adavantage to a wheel landing. As soon as you get the mains on the ground and pick the tail up, she’s all done flying. Directional control is still important, as you pointed out, but the main thing is to get the weight off the wings and onto the mains.
Can’t agree with this. Sure, you shouldn’t “force” the tailwheel on first, but it’s not that dangerous (at least, not in a small Citabria). Acutally, letting the tail wheel bump down a fraction ahead of the mains makes a pretty smooth landing. Again, it’s pitch attitude (angle of attack to the wing, in this case) that’s the key, not directional control. If you’re very close to stalling the airplane, with the nose high in a good flare, when the tailwheel hits you get a forced pitch down of a few degrees, which unloads the wings and plants the main gear down. The forces on the tailwheel are small, the tail doesn’t weigh much and the gear is pretty springy back there.
You certainly don’t lose directional control just because the tail’s on the ground. You maintain a pretty good ability to yaw even down to walking speed, and then, you can gun the engine for a second to let propwash help you turn, if needed.
To me, a good wheel landing is much more difficult to execute than a 3 pointer. It’s just too easy to get things bouncing (porposing) when you try to do it that way. I’m awed when I see a large or high performance taildragger (like a DC-3 or WWII warbird) make a graceful wheel landing. It’s very hard to judge the right moment to lift the tail. A bit too early and you’ll shove the prop into the ground - a bit late and you’re going to bounce back into the air.
I was taught to pull the flaps up (in the Cessna 172 I learned in) as soon as the aircraft was planted on the runway to put more weight on the mains. I was also taught to keep the nosewheel up for as long as possible. Since it was dad’s plane, he didn’t like using the brakes to slow enough for the first turnoff and the other end of the runway was too far away. I also used as much flaps as I could (up to 40º) in the gusty Mojave Desert conditions and habitually made short-field landings on WJF’s 5000-foot runway. It was sort of a game, I guess.
I was talking to someone who had been up for a checkride. When he moved to raise the flaps the instructor slapped his hand away. “You need to know what to do if your flaps fail. Leave 'em down!” As PIC, I would have been pissed if someone touched my controls without my permission or interfered with my use of them. When I went for my checkride for my license, the examiner always asked permission before he did something (like chop the power) or he asked me to do it. Any comments on that?
Airplanes are fun, and just the thing for zipping (relatively speaking) off to Las Vegas for lunch. But I haven’t flown fixed-wings since I took up helicopters. That’s the way to fly! (Uh… unless you need to go somewhere far or in a hurry!)
Welcome to the boards, kellymccauley!
Johnny LA - I’m not a helo pilot, but I do work as an engineer for the US Army on helicopters.
On lifting the flaps during roll-out, I think it’s a bad habit for anyone who ever might fly a retractable gear airplane. The chance of reaching over and pulling up the wheels by mistake is too great. I leave things where they are untill clear of the runway.
On the check-ride issue, I do think the check pilot should ask you to demonstrate whatever he wants, and not fool with the controls (unless he’s decided to flunk you). That said, I can remember two times when a check pilot reached over and pulled power off and said “you’ve just lost the engine, what are you going to do?” Of course, this isn’t totally unexpected, and I reacted by the book. But I often wondered what he’d say if I just reached up and put the throttle back where it belonged and announced that I’d solved the problem, and would he please keep his hands to himself!
I’ve flown just about every landing gear configuriation (on land). Tailwheels, both steerable and castering, and nosewheels, both steerable and castering. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Some tailwheel aircraft are a breeze to land. Others are a real bear. It’s almost always easier to land a tailwheel aircraft on grass than on pavement, because if you land with a little bit of translational movement across the runway, the aircraft will skid sideways on grass, but will grip pavement and try to swap ends.
Tailwheel aircraft have two big advantages:
First, the tailwheel is very small and light. This gets you much lower drag, and quite a bit less weight (50-100 lbs, typically, in an aircraft that might only lift 300-500).
Second, a tailwheel aircraft has much better prop clearance than a nosewheel aircraft, and the geometry of the gear makes it much more forgiving going over obstacles on the ground. This makes them great for soft fields (i.e. bush planes or glider tow planes), and great for aircraft that have big honkin’ propellers on the front (WWII fighters).
The big disadvantages to tailwheel aircraft are poor visibility over the nose when taxiing and taking off (requiring ‘S-Turns’ so you can see where you are going), and the tendency to ground loop. Also, when the aircraft is sitting still or moving slowly the wing is at a high angle of attack, which makes the airplane much more susceptible to wind gusts. Thus Johnny’s comment about not being finished flying a taildragger until it’s tied to the ground.
Tailwheel aircraft often handle better in the air than their nose-draggin’ counterparts. The lack of that heavy nosewheel hanging out on essentially a pendulum arm improves roll rate.
I’d like to say I really enjoy flying tail draggers, 'cause that’s the macho pilot thing to say. But honestly, I’ve never really felt comfortable landing one. You’ve got to keep your feet dancing on the pedals, and the thought that the beast wants to swap ends on me all the time makes me nervous. On the other hand, on the rare occasion when I land on a grass strip I’d rather fly a taildragger.
Retracts have a “squat switch” in them that prevents the gear from retracting if the aircraft is on the ground. You wouldn’t raise the flaps until you’re fully planted on the mains. The squat switch could be faulty, but that’s not much of a problem in a 172. 
You work for the army? Say, could you get me a Blackhawk? Maybe you can mail it to me piece by piece, like it’s said GIs used to do with jeeps…?
Sam, I’m with you on those landings. In the Citabria, I confidently did loops, hammerheads, split-S’s, all kinds of stomach chruning fun. But line up on final to a paved strip on a gusty crosswind day - white knuckle time!
Johnny, how big is your mailbox? I might have to fold the rotor blades in two, but you can just straighten 'em out with a sledgehammer.
kelly, if you mail me a Blackhawk, I’ll get a big enough mail box! 
Johnny, I suggest you don’t rely on a squat switch to keep the plane’s nose out of the dirt. Squat switches fail, or the airplane temporarily leaves the ground and the gear folds…Then it takes a LOT of power to taxi up to the ramp.
There’s a good reason to pull the flaps on landing, however - you’re less likely to put FOD through them. Especially important on gravel or other unimproved strips. Another reason to make the aircraft less susceptible to wind gusts on the ground.
Sam Stone, The aircraft I fly don’t have flaps. Just a “flapping hinge”! And no wheels at all!