PDA

View Full Version : Wheel Landings



Ken Dwelle
09-30-2006, 10:02 AM
My brother Tom and I have this on-going dialogue concerning wheel landings vs 3 point, he likes to wheel land, I don't. We were bored yesterday at lunch time, so we drug out one of the T-6's and spent the better part of an hour doing touch and go's while he attempted to teach me the finer points of the wheel landing. When I got home last night I did a little reading: The flight manual for the T-6, P-51, P-47 and A-1E all specify a 3 point landing. The Mustang book does have a note about doing a wheel landing in "unusual" weather conditions: "Always make 3-point landings unless a wheel landing is justified by unusual weather conditions." I can see the need to carry extra speed and wheel land in gusty winds. I asked the old man if they ever wheel landed the Skyraider back in the day, and his response was "no, never". Yet it seems to me that most folks wheel land their warbirds these days.

So my question for discussion is this: What are the pluses and minuses of the wheel landing, and why are most folks deviating from flight manual guidance and historical operating practices? There must be a reason, but it's beyond me. Please help me understand what I'm missing.

stuntflyr
09-30-2006, 12:55 PM
There are those with opinions on the "correct" way to land citing that thre-point, wheelies, etc are the "only" way to go. However the reality is that one should land using the technique appropriate for the conditions.

I was taught to fly in a number of light and not too light tailwheel airplanes. Back then, the rule was that the little airplanes should be landed three-point and the heavier ones should be landed tail-low, heading for a three-point. I never was taught to land the airplane in a level wheel-landing position like a lot of airplanes are landed today.
The technique of wheel-landing was that ahe airplane was flown to touchdown at the 1.3 speed or so and then rounded out just like a tail-low or three-point landing, and just when the mains touched the stick or wheel was pushed forward to reduce the AOA to near zero and the wing wouldn't want to fly the airplane off in gusty conditions.

stuntflyr
09-30-2006, 03:12 PM
I guess there is no edit feature anymore, so I'll go on from where I left off.

I never liked this technique because it made for a big heading change and I didn't then adequately understand the effects of GP, gyroscopic precession. Pushing the stick forward made the airplane go hard left, and it always is a destabilizing effect no matter if you are ready for it or not, so I avoided for years the sudden changing of pitch attitude.

So through the years there developed a technique of flying the airplane down to the runway at whatever speed was necessary for the traffic or length of runway, or wind, and then doing whatever necessary to transition to the appropriate attitude for landing.

The criteria are always judged at the time, but the Twin beech into LAX always was at 160 knots approach speed to fit in to the jet traffic, and then at the point where it was needed the airplane would be decellerated to the level wheel landing attitude airspeed and landed that way.

After a non-precision approach into Fresno on a nice calm morning the airplane was only going about 110 and already in the landing configuration so it was an easy set-up for a nice pretty three-pointer to make the mid-field intersection turn off.

Some fields were too small to mess around and a Staggerwing into Meadowlark was made at minimum speed with a power flare at about 80mph to as close to a three-point position as one can get and once it's on, or close to on, to pull the power immediately so it will stop.

Crosswinds that are steady do not change my considerations for a landing technique. If it is a steady 15 mph crosswind and I am landing an airplane I usually do a tail-low landing in, that is what I will use.

Gusty conditions close to the limit of the airplanes ability I will use a different technique, usually a level attitude wheel-landing technique because it is real easy to go around, you get an idea of the airplane's ability to stay in control directionally as it slows down.
My father will land in a strong gusty crosswind in any tailwheel airplane with the same flare to a three point as in a clam wind. He has no need for wheelies. His contention is that the combonation crab/slip to an upwind wheel touchdown is as good as a wheelie if the wind is too strong for a coordinated touchdown at tail-low speed, and that the extra speed is just postponing the inevitable, the tailwheel must touchdown eventually.

He was obviously trained from those old manuals, Ken.

I used to try to only make three-pointers or tail-low landings until I started flying freighters in a lot of different conditions. I decided after a few hairy roll-outs that the "air show maneuver" wheelies were not so hard to do. They keep the wing at zero AOA so it won't lift off. And sometimes the wind was too strong to taxi in, and a couple of times it was requiredto use the tail-high power/brake taxi to get it to the parking spot. Not recommended for antiques of ones own ownership!

There are many varied techniques to get the airplane on and stopped, and it seems that the three-pointer is one no used often anymore, I agree. But to me a well performed three-pointer is one of the best tools to use for depleting the airplane's energy and getting it stopped. One of the prettiest I remember seeing was Tiger in Strega making a deadstick at Madera after an engine failure and playing the flap handle like the spoiler in a glider to round out beautifully at what looked very slow speed to touchdown with the tailwheel touching immediately after the mains and staying down for the very short rollout. A very well executed landing in an airplane that undeservedly gets a rep for not being safe to three-point. Obviously that is not true.

Chris...

Race 22 mech
09-30-2006, 03:28 PM
Being around some of the guys that used to fly the T-6 and the P-51 "back in the day", I have heard the comment that most of the flight manuals usually considered normal landing being done on grass and into the wind.

I know there are some old training field sites around here from the Sterman training days that look like a compass rose. The airplane was headed into the wind and go, no fixed runway or nasty crosswinds to deal with.

For the T-6, I like wheel landings better, but like three point flying the cub. We had a Yak 55 for a while and it had to be three pointed, the prop would hit if you tried wheeling it.

Chip

MLenoch
09-30-2006, 06:48 PM
Ken:
Not a judgemental question at all, do you 3 point civilian Mustangs?
I have never seen it done. I will 3 point on grass, in non-gusty conditions, but not on paved runways; if it drops, it drops harder than on grass.
Just curious, thx,
VL

MLenoch
09-30-2006, 06:53 PM
Chris:
The manuals for the Mustang were written for a military weight aircraft. For the Twin Beech, does it matter if it is heavy or light for 3 point landings? Do you change your landing technique depending on landing weight? Never asked this before......Very curious.
Thx,
VL

stuntflyr
09-30-2006, 07:31 PM
Chris:
The manuals for the Mustang were written for a military weight aircraft. For the Twin Beech, does it matter if it is heavy or light for 3 point landings? Do you change your landing technique depending on landing weight? Never asked this before......Very curious.
Thx,
VL

Hi Vlado,
The Twin Beeches I flew were all converted to the high tailwheel/raised incidence stab types or E's and G's that were built that way and were much easier to get the tail down when there was a heavy load in the back than I think they might have been if they were AT's or C's and D's.

My Dad's Staggerwing was a stock UC-43/GB-2 type and had the military short spools keeping the stab incidence pretty far "leading edge down" for a good three-pointer with only one person in the airplane, and when I flew it as a kid it did not want to three-point with me in it even though it was set-up this way. You had to get slow and then flare with power to get it "dug-in" to do it, which I only did on short fields. It is much nicer with five people in it, very solid with a cross the fence at 90 and just pull the power and flare it out coming down on the mains and quickly thereafter, the tailwheel.

I think that the idea about a messed up three pointer and the resulting damage if you drop in a heavy tailwheel airplane is a factor as to whether to do them or not, as you intimated in your conditions for a three pointer. I have seen other guys besides Tiger do them in a Mustang, Ed Shipley and Pat McGarry to drop names but they were in good conditions.
My father flew Lockheeds as executive transports in the olden days and the chief pilot of the company would let Dad make a three-pointer in the Howard 500 or Super Ventura, "...if I told him I was going to do it first".
I think it asks for a little more precision and thought to do correctly.

I go for the tail-low on airplanes I don't fly very much unless they are specifically better off landed three-point.

The Pitts Special is one I have just started to wheel land, and I have had them for nine years! Ones experience in type probably accounts for a lot too in choosing what technique to use.

Thanks for the question,
Chris...

King
09-30-2006, 07:41 PM
My father flew the Howard 500.....

Now THAT is an airplane!!!!!!!!!!

BTW.....we own the Type Certificate for the H-500..............wish I could build a few!

Ken Dwelle
09-30-2006, 07:50 PM
Vlado-

Thanks for posting. I've never flown a Mustang. I used it as a reference, because I had the manual on my bookshelf. There are plenty of WWII Fighter Pilots that will tell you they have never wheel landed an airplane. Chip's point about the square training fields and the lack of a crosswind is valid, but I don't think the combat fields in Europe were set up that way. Not trying to throw any spears, just very curious. Always looking for a better way to operate our airplanes.

-Ken



Ken:
Not a judgemental question at all, do you 3 point civilian Mustangs?
I have never seen it done. I will 3 point on grass, in non-gusty conditions, but not on paved runways; if it drops, it drops harder than on grass.
Just curious, thx,
VL

Matt Jackson
09-30-2006, 08:23 PM
The old dreaded three point or wheel landing. I believe the late P51 manuals asked for a tail low wheel landing. I believe from 3500 plus Mustang hours and 700 dual given that any landing you can taxi up to the chokes is a good landing. It would be nice to say for the sake of being manly that three points are what the pro's do. The reality is I like tail low wheel landings. I can put a Mustang in on a dime and maintain directional control without worrying about ripping the tail wheel out because I dropped the plane in from too high. As a mechanic I can tell you full stall landings are hard on the tail of a Mustang. If its a beautiful day and I want to wow the crowd the P51 does a great three point. Come in a bit too fast and eat up a few feet of runway then throw in a gusty cross wind and a three point can eat you alive. Now if your talking about a Cub or a Stearman or a Bear Cat, Wildcat, Skyraider they are pussy cats to three point. In the Bear Cat you make it to the airport boundry and chop the power hold it off and she floats on like a champ this is true of all Grumman aircraft. Mustang-Sea Fury are a bit of a different animal. Mustangs air foils don't like high angles of attack. Tail low wheelies work for me throw in an occasional three point for the crowd. What's right? take your choice/. I do have to say that Tom always amazed me with his three point landings in the Sea Fury Critical Mass. I think I even went up to him and told him he was my hero after seeing what he had to do to get his plane back in his short runway back home. The bottom line is both work just fine. Don't forget the reason they put nose wheels on airplanes is that they were tired of picking up the broken **** after the ground loop. I always said the toughest part of an Unlimited race was landing after the battle was over. Imagine turning final into the setting sun with a plane out of gas wind blowing 25-30 knots 45 degrees off the nose engine running rough and your going to lay three point on the crowd. My question is who cares? Do what works best for you. I can tail low wheel land a Mustang into an 1800 foot strip and can put it on the first 12 inches of the runway everytime, that's what works for me.

Matt J

stuntflyr
09-30-2006, 08:55 PM
Now THAT is an airplane!!!!!!!!!!

BTW.....we own the Type Certificate for the H-500..............wish I could build a few!

Very cool. The one the he flew was N200G (company kept the number) that is now in England. The Super they had was destroyed running dope in the 70's.
I would be nice to build a few more. Do you also have the jigs, I heard there is a fuse in the jig, is that true?
Chris...

MLenoch
10-01-2006, 04:30 AM
Back when I had about 100 hours in the Mustang........aw-alright, when I had less than 20 hours..... tried landings using my past experience as a guide...T-6, Pitts, etc. The small airport had 2900' for starters. Tried using 3 point landings. It just didn't feel comfortably consistant. Runway couldn't be wasted, it was almost always crosswind, with turbulence from hangers-trees... What I was getting was an occasional wing drop during the 3 point - full stall landing. So I had to switch to the tail low wheel landing. With this, I could more accurately hit the mark on the runway end and had assured lateral control to touch down.

What I did notice in later years (gasp, time isn't standing still...) when flying fully restored Mustangs with guns, armor, etc. a slower and even more tail low and sometimes 3 point landing felt much more comfortable than in my own light civie bird. Thus, I wondered if the higher weight Twin Beech experience was similar.

Ken - Matt - Chris , thanks for the great input. I keenly appreciate another perspective. Always very much look forward to hearing of any new nuances or ideas in flying these warbirds.

Thanks again,
Vlado

Unregistered
10-01-2006, 06:06 AM
Ken:
When are you going to race the T6 again? The T6's need guys like you in their ranks.
Race 18 (ret.)

King
10-01-2006, 06:55 AM
Very cool. The one the he flew was N200G (company kept the number) that is now in England. The Super they had was destroyed running dope in the 70's.
I would be nice to build a few more. Do you also have the jigs, I heard there is a fuse in the jig, is that true?
Chris...

No jigs exist anymore. Unless they were spirited out many years ago by someone.

Ken Dwelle
10-01-2006, 09:18 AM
Matt-

3500 hrs in the Mustang? How in the world... Hold on while I add you to MY hero list. Your point about dropping it in 3 point and damaging the airplane makes a lot of sense.

Vlado-

We used to have a T-6G that was really stock, except that the guns, bomb racks and military radios had been removed. When flying solo, I couldn't 3 point it. The elevator would hit the stop and it would land on the mains with the tail still a little in the air. We eventually had it weighed and found that when solo, it was forward of the forward CG limit. We took that big battery off of the firewall and moved it the tailcone and it landed much nicer. Both of the T-6's we have now have the battery in the back, but I like the way they land when there is someone big in the back seat. Could your experiences with the stock vs civillian Mustang be related to CG?

All-

I guess my reluctance to wheel landing the T-6 is based on the ground loop potential. When the tailwheel is on the ground, I've got a lot of yaw authority. When I land tail high, it's not hard to get yaw swing or two until I figure the gains out. I know plenty of folks that have ground looped the T-6 while wheel landing, and not one who has hurt it while landing 3 point. I know they must be out there.
You guys have given me enough reasons for a tail low wheel landing (a/c damage, gusty wind, big airport) that I am going to work on them. It's probably something I should have in my bag of tricks. Thanks for your input. Now anyone want to talk about crosswinds?....

-Ken

aflyer
10-01-2006, 10:09 AM
I have long had a rule that if the airplane has toe brakes, and the wind is blowing, and I am landing on pavement or dirt, I will wheel land it. If the wind is really blowing, it will be pretty fast with half flaps. It can be hard on the brakes, because once it's down, I want to get to walking speed as soon as I can, before anything bad happens.

If the runway is slippery, then you are more limited in the amount of crosswind you can handle, and a 3 point landing works best. Same with heel brakes.

I do like the tail low wheelie. A friend with a ton of experience calls them "taints"...taint a wheel landing, taint a 3-point. None the less, I like them best for everyday landings on pavement.

All that said, there is something magic about a tailwheel airplane, a grass runway, and a 3-point landing! The airplane just loves it.

john

Jgrifft6
10-01-2006, 10:49 AM
Great Discussion led by some experts in the field!

One quick note I've learned after 200hrs in the T-6. A tail low wheel landing will eat your lunch in a T-6! The mustang has more air over the tail due to landing speeds and less blanking out by the fuselage because of streamlining with the tail low...it also eats up less runway than tail high landings, has better tire wear, less chance of catching the prop, thus it is the preferred method of mustang instructors. The T-6 has that big round cowl up front and tons of airplane in front of the tail to blank that tail out, thats one of the reason you must get so vigilant while putting the tail down from a wheelie as you go through the transition. If you run a T-6 on a tail low wheel landing, you're combining the worse parts of either method (no t/w on the ground and not much good air over the rudder). You also take some weight off the wheels (if you needed to use brakes, this would be critical) since the wing is still biting some air in tail low attitude. I always make sure to put the tail far into good air during wheel landings (around flying attitude) until i'm ready to set the tail down. Worked well for me so far, even in 20-25knot xwind components. It also gives great visibility to keep track of any other T-6s on the runway in front of you if you are flying formation.
In all fairness to the 3 point, after the first 3-5 seconds, its usually a piece of cake but the time right before she touches and right afterwards, I always feel not completely in control which is something I never experience in a wheelie.
Hope this helps and if I ever groundloop it, I'll make sure to come back and tell you guys to ignore this post.

Jason

MLenoch
10-01-2006, 11:53 AM
Ken.......

A very good & important point.......one of the problems in these light civie Mustangs is that the CG is so far forward; likely at the forward limit. When I stick my "fat" crew chief in the back (actually, an ex-wrestler=big guy), it lands tail-low much easier. Thus, the 'combat' restored Mustangs have a CG that is further aft than the civie birds. And also, the WW2 Mustang pilot manual descriptions would better correspond to these birds.

Over the years, I've also found the T-6s have a better crosswind control capability than the civie Mustangs. Ailerons and rudder are more effective in maintaining desired landing attitude for a T-6 crosswind landing than in the civie Mustang. I have not had much opportunity to fly the 'combat' versions in strong crosswind landings because they are show planes and by owner's choice, not flown on bad weather days.

Vlado
PS: Please don't tell my crew chief I called him "fat"!!Thx

Peashooter
10-02-2006, 07:20 AM
Some of you have seen my post about the Lee Bottom Fly-In. This was a great place to watch gusty crosswind ops up close and personal. The runway is 17/35 and we were landing to the South. Winds aloft were 240 at 30-35 kts at 3,000, but there's a 3-500' hill just West of the runway and the Ohio River is immediately to the East of the grass runway.

As I followed my brother in (he in a Super Cub, me in a 7AC Champ) there was a lot of turbulence on downwind and even more on base leg as we passed through the rotor coming over the hill. As we flew down final and got lower, the crosswind shifted from right to left and the turbulence diminished. On the left side of the runway there are openings in the tree line which made for consistent gusts about 1/4 of the way down the runway. I elected to do a wing-low, slightly tail-low wheelie since it was gusty and I wanted full control authority down to and onto the runway, which was lined on both sides by people and airplanes. A three-point landing in the Champ in gusty crosswind conditions is kind of like a kite without a tail -- it's controllable, but far more comfortable with the extra speed and authority of a wheel landing. At Lee Bottom, I flew it down to the runway with a wing low and flared just enough to roll it on, thus a slightly tail-low wheelie, left wheel first letting the right wheel come down as airspeed bled off.

We watched lots of landing by lots of tail draggers. Most did wheel landings. One Stearman came in and was just about to touch down doing a three point when he passed through the gust from the left tree opening. He ballooned about 7-8' into the air and to the right and threw in a bunch of power to save the landing. My brother and I agreed that if he'd done a wheelie, he would have "flown" right through the gust, needing just some rudder to maintain runway heading.

Later in the day, the DC-3 Adventures -3 did some fly-bys. He did a beautiful wing-low, one wheel touch 'n go, rolling the left wheel about 1,000' down the runway. There was some rudder dancing, but it was a beautiful maneuver suited to the conditions.

One note about wheel landings in a Champ, I have noticed that solo you barely touch the rudder, however, with anyone over about 130 lbs in the back, you can feel a greater tendency to swing into the wind if the airplane gets divergent at all. It's easily caught, but you have to pay attention. As my Dad taught me, "you're the pilot, fly the airplane."

I do lots of touch 'n goes with the Champ just becaue it's so much fun, and I usually alternate wheel and full-stall landings. I find that the full stall requires more finesse with the elevator, since it's easy to round out too soon and balloon into a dropped-in landing.

One final note, with my Long EZ, there's only one way -- ya gotta fly it on with a round-out to touch down. The only variation is that if it's gusty, I'll leave the belly flap closed and carry a couple of extra knots per the gust margin. It never fails to make the pilot look good in turbulent conditions.

Ken Dwelle
10-02-2006, 07:29 PM
"you're the pilot, fly the airplane."

Hmmmm, My dad used to tell me close to the same thing: "You're the pilot, make the airplane do what you want it to do."

Good posts all of them.

Ken

shorebird
10-02-2006, 08:46 PM
My two cents;

Wheel landings assure that the Pilot can accurately choose his/her touchdown spot and provide better over the nose visibility and ground tracking on roll out. This is an advantage even on, or especially on short, narrow runways. Attempting to spot land in a three point attiitude in any tail dragger that is blind over the nose is a crap shoot, especially in windy conditions. Often, setting down at a higher ground speed on the main gear will allow for a shorter stopping distance with a higher degree accuracy and consistency. Landing on the main gear allows for the transfer of energy to the ground via the breaks and tires. Generally, brakes will stop an aircraft sooner with greater consistency, than aerodynamic braking (holding the aircraft off to a full stall touchdown). Of course, this assumes that you have good brakes and tires that are large enough to have good contact with the ground and adequate traction.
This question can also depend on the type of aircraft. A short squatty aircraft like a Champ or Super Cub with good overall visibility over the nose, can in the right hands, be consistently landed shorter in three point rather then a tail high, wheel landing. However, for blind aircraft with higher wing loading a wheel landing may be preferred.
Formula One drivers at Reno who probably face the highest work load of any pilot landing a racer choose, almost exclusively, to wheel land. They do so because they don't want to be blindly, pecking at a runway at 80 mph. Rather, they want to set their main gear onto the runway at an aim point with good forward visibility and allow the aircraft to decelerate on the main gear. At Reno, over the nose visibility is especially important due to other landing traffic they may be on the runway.
I'll end with another interesting question to befuddle old tail dragger pilots: Which type can you consistently land shorter a tricycle gear aircraft or a tail dragger?????

Ken Dwelle
10-02-2006, 11:42 PM
Ken:
When are you going to race the T6 again? The T6's need guys like you in their ranks.
Race 18 (ret.)

Thank you Randy, we'll see.

-Ken

Jan
10-03-2006, 10:22 AM
Thanks for constructive discussion.

B.t.w. there are planes, where you really donīt have a choice.
Although this pic is from take off, the aoa on landings is the same.
To wheel Czech Mate down like a civie Mustang, Corsair or Sea Fury
without propstrike seems to be not very realistic.


http://www.airrace.info/reno2006/06uSunMonTue/06u_9317.jpg

supercub
10-03-2006, 09:01 PM
Difference between a wheel landing and a 3 pointer?? is the cost of the repairs if one screws up. I agree, it somewhat depends on the airplane. One comment I'll make is that......in a properly executed wheel landing there is no need to push forward on the stick immediately following the wheels touching, to keep them glued on......if you have to do this, you're in the wrong attitude for a properly excuted wheel landing.
Brian

Tin Man
10-03-2006, 09:32 PM
Thanks for constructive discussion.

B.t.w. there are planes, where you really donīt have a choice.
Although this pic is from take off, the aoa on landings is the same.
To wheel Czech Mate down like a civie Mustang, Corsair or Sea Fury
without propstrike seems to be not very realistic.


http://www.airrace.info/reno2006/06uSunMonTue/06u_9317.jpg

Just curious, do the unlimiteds have an over the nose visabiliy test like the F1s do?
Tom

HiredBitSlinger
10-07-2006, 05:20 PM
Evidence that no matter how you plan to do it, things can get exiting fast.

Uh-sure
10-07-2006, 05:49 PM
Ole R.A Bob Hoover used to land on one wheel like that all the time........

wardog
10-08-2006, 07:38 AM
thanks for some great conversation by experienced pilots. my 30 hrs in the T6 doesn't compare to what the rest of you have, but all my T6 landings have been wheel landings. My training has been from a well known airshow pilot, and he does wheel landings. However, since I'm a relative rookie, do you think that landing from the back seat makes a difference in whether you opt for a wheel landing or 3-pt? It's hard enough to see the runway from the back w/o trying to three point!

race9
10-08-2006, 08:38 AM
I've got about 200 hours in various tail draggers, and I've three pointed every one (or at least tried to). On the other hand, all of these are 185 sized or smaller, so I have no idea whether to 3-point or wheel warbirds, although I think Jimmy wheels his Mustang down.

Peashooter
10-09-2006, 09:00 PM
I've got about 200 hours in various tail draggers, and I've three pointed every one (or at least tried to). On the other hand, all of these are 185 sized or smaller, so I have no idea whether to 3-point or wheel warbirds, although I think Jimmy wheels his Mustang down.

Hey Ryan, How many planes did you solo on your birthday? I remember the story in Sport Aviation about Dirk (your dad?) soloing a bunch of planes on his 16th, including the P-51 and a Beech 18! Peas

Peashooter
10-09-2006, 09:08 PM
Evidence that no matter how you plan to do it, things can get exiting fast.

There are two things CJ's doing in this picture for gusty crosswind technique: 1) he likely approached at a crabbed angle aiming to the left of the runway, which ya can't do once the wheels touch, so as you round out to put it on, you lower the upwind wing and hold your line on the runway with opposite rudder. With practice, its a very fluid, controllable maneuver; and 2) he's only using half flap which provides a little more speed for gust margins and enhanced control response. GREAT photo!

TWD
10-09-2006, 10:23 PM
Just thinking about crabbing down final.

Used to fly the Boeing 757. Was great fun flying final with a steady crosswind because the a/c is so long. Other pilot calls 50 feet. Flare, rudder to line up with the runway and put it on the upwind gear. Course then the spoilers deploy and the other gear comes crashing down. More fun in a taildragger where you can roll it along on one wheel for a while.

No one told me that when the upwind truck touched down, you'd better have the nose lined up with the runway because it would swing to center very quickly. I'm sure the passengers in the rear got their heads smacked against the windows a time or two.

When I land the T-6 from the back, I always do a wheelie so I can see. Our home runway is on the narrow side and all fwd visibility goes away quickly with the tail down.

TJ Dwelle

race9
10-10-2006, 05:35 AM
Hey Ryan, How many planes did you solo on your birthday?

None. I'm only 15, so I can't legally solo yet. Though I plan on soloing at least 3, maybe more. No P-51 though.


I remember the story in Sport Aviation about Dirk (your dad?) soloing a bunch of planes on his 16th, including the P-51 and a Beech 18! Peas

We'll, it wasn't his 16th Birthday and he didn't solo a Beech 18, but thats about right.

Propellerhead
10-10-2006, 08:45 AM
There are two things CJ's doing in this picture for gusty crosswind technique
Peas,
A small correction. The pilot is wearing a Blue helmet, I think that's Dan Vance...