Although it isn't a huge milestone, I finally managed to do a wheel-landing and stop in under 500ft. I've done more than a few 350-400ft 3-points but this was definitely the shortest wheelie I've done. You can really get on the brakes, feels more stable than heavy braking with the tail down.

I wonder how much easier this stuff would be with flaps.

-Grant

I'm not quite sure what your circumstances are, but
generally if minimum landing distance is the objective
the extra speed typically carried during a wheel landing
isn't going to help much.

For a minimum distance landing, I've generally slowed
down a tailwheel aircraft enough so that the tailwheel
touches first, then the mains. This is especially the
case with no flaps!

Again, your mileage may vary ... if you are landing
someplace extremely rough (e.g. bush pilot landing
on large rocks) you may want to do a tail-low wheel
landing and keep the tailwheel from touching to
avoid breaking it up and let the big, soft tundra tires
on the mains roll over the large rocks. This is pretty
extreme, though.

Grant also has landed "more than a few" times 100-150 feet shorter during three pointers. I read it in his post there. He seems to be talking about working on other techniques here.

Sounds like fun, keep being care full. I don't know what factors would cause brakes to grab but..

What type of aircraft? I used to try a wheel landing in a buddy's Luscombe once in a while. Scared my self half to death! Bloody heal brakes! Never did like them much. On the Doug, of course all landings were wheel landings, and you could stomp on the binders with no problem.

A good headwind helps (usually that's when you want to wheel it on anyways). You can get stopped in no time!

This was all just technique stuff. I can plant it in a wheelie with excessive speed, this was about getting to the wheel landing attitude with just the minimum amount of energy at the right place on the runway.

I still can't do it everytime with a 3-pointer, but I'd be happy operating off of 1500 feet (and I do). I'd like to get that number down below 1000ft with confidence. Part of that will be a prop repitch, its still too steep for effective braking (or climbing).

Tailwheel first is very agressive. I've done it and I'm sure the airframe doesn't mind but I can't help but wonder what 63 years of age has done for the original welds. I'm not so good at the backside of the curve approaches yet.

Aircraft is a PA-16 with a few mods, so of half-way to a PA-11.

-Grant

I'd like to get that number down below 1000ft

It's all airspeed (and airspeed control). I easily landed a C172
in 300 feet yesterday on grass - lots of wind in eastern ontario
yesterday and it was right on the nose - but the key was the
60 mph indicated airspeed.

When you can safely get the airspeed down, the float disappears
and the aircraft touches down where you want it. This is true of
both nosewheel and tailwheel.

If the aircraft is floating in ground effect after the flare in the landing
attitude - and you're correctly holding it off, trying to stop it from
landing - that means you approached too fast.

With a proper short field approach speed, after the flare the aircraft
will say "f__k you" and sit down on the ground, regardless of what
you do with the elevator. With a tailwheel aircraft, expect the tailwheel
to touch first with the correct short field approach configuration.

What's the point of landing in 500 feet? Are you going to take off from the same surface in 500 feet? It seems like unnecessary wear and tear on the breaks.

If you do it right, you don't put a lot of wear on the brakes. I can think of a few reasons why you might not want to use up all of the runway.

Are you going to take off from the same surface in 500 feet?

Actually, I did on thursday, with admittedly some wind
on the nose, in the 210hp Maule. Power went on, tail
immediately came up, and in less than 500 feet I pulled
some (more) flap on, raised the nose and off we went.

Here's a pro at work:



If you think that's faked:

Maules are fun!

In that aircraft at that weight 500ft TO run on the same surface is totally practicable, and brakes are the least of my expenses (don't use them much day to day).

CS: True story on the AS. Only issue is that the PA-16 was one of those poor sods which was conceived when they were trying to make aircraft unstallable. The elevator travel is rather limited, you can quickly run out of "up" if you aren't careful. Anything under 60mph solo and it just sinks when you flare, maybe I'm flaring it too high in those situations trying to arrest the decent?
I think a flatter prop would be nice, something to increase the drag a little bit. If only I could get some larger tires approved without going the full BW set-up.

-Grant

Sounds like elements of the Cherokee were starting to creep in already with the PA-16. I wonder if Fred Weick (Ercoupe, PA-28) was working for Piper at the time?

iflyforpie wrote:Sounds like elements of the Cherokee were starting to creep in already with the PA-16. I wonder if Fred Weick (Ercoupe, PA-28) was working for Piper at the time?

No idea. Its a spin-off of the PA-15 Vegabond, which was an aircraft designed to use as many existing parts and assemblies as possible from the J series.
They didn't exactly design it to be a pussycat though. Fairly short coupled and all the control are pretty quick for a fabric Piper. With the exception of the elevator its got plenty of authority.

I've been told VGs are a major improvement on the type, but my head is telling me that money would be best spent burning fuel.

-Grant

Drop the hint to wifey that VG's are at
the top of her xmas shopping list!

iflyforpie wrote:A good headwind helps (usually that's when you want to wheel it on anyways)

Curious what the reasoning is here? I don't know that headwind has ever factored into my decision between 2 and 3 point.

chinglish wrote:What's the point of landing in 500 feet?

It's fun!

chinglish wrote:Are you going to take off from the same surface in 500 feet?

Bush pilots do it every day.

Maules are basically a PA-20 with a bigger engine and the PA-20 is just a PA-16 with a bigger engine. If you want to land short, land 3 point but they do wheel land quite nicely, actually one of the easier ones to wheel land.

If you want to land short, land 3 point

Close. If you want to land short, minimize your kinetic
energy - which is a function of velocity squared -
by slowing down just onto the start of the back side of
the power curve - just slightly below the speed for
maximum endurance.

This will typically result in a nose-high attitude (even
with flaps) and the tailwheel will touch down first, and
then the mains. AOA is reduced when the mains comes
down, and so is lift, which results in no floating.

B.D. Maule (a really nice old guy) taught this landing, which
he called the "double whomp" - first the tailwheel, then the
mains touch.

It saddens me that the youngsters these days will never
know who B.D. Maule, Curtis Pitts, Steve Wittman, Jimmy
Doolittle, or Bob Hoover are. They were giants among us
mortal men.

B.D. Maule designed and built his own aircraft as a teenager,
and taught himself to fly from reading a book. Seriously. You
think you have to balls and skill and drive and determination
to do that?

In the Bad Years of GA (1980's and 1990's) when Cessna
ran away scared from building light aircraft, B.D. Maule told
the New York lawyers with the $800 Italian brown leather
shoes to go f__k themselves, and kept on building airplanes.

When he got bored, he would grab a new Maule and take off
out of the hangar. You probably think I'm full of sh1t, but:



They don't build men like him any more, I'm afraid.

Edit - this guy knows how to do the "double-whomp" landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVimgxRVM08&t=15s

Press "play" then immediately pause.

It saddens me that the youngsters these days will never
know who B.D. Maule, Curtis Pitts, Steve Wittman, Jimmy..

Fair enough but a long time ago someone probably said.

It saddens me that the youngsters these days will never
know who Don McLaren, Roy Brown, Joe Fall, Frank Quigly..

If I could pick one pre-WWI aviator for people
to learn about, it would have to be this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_J._Beachey

He's the best pilot you've never heard of. He was
a true pioneering pilot, when people really didn't
understand hardly anything about how airplanes flew,
and airplanes were really quite horrible pieces of sh1t.

At a time when the entire population of the US was just
90 million people, 17 million came out to see him fly in just one year!

Orville Wright said: "An aeroplane in the hands of Lincoln Beachey is
poetry. His mastery is a thing of beauty to watch. He is the most
wonderful flyer of all."

Thomas Alva Edison wrote: "I was startled and amazed, when I saw
that youngster take to the sky and send his aeroplane through the loop
and then follow that feat with an upside-down flight. I could not believe
my own eyes, and my nerves were atingle for many minutes."

That Wikipedia article can't be true.

He became famous and wealthy from flying

Actually for many years Maules looked like they were built in Russian tractor factories. One of the poorist finished aircraft I have ever flown. They certainly have improved over the years but it took them a long time.