What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-4 POLL: 3 Point or Wheel Landing

How do you usually land the RV-4?


  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .

Whitman

Well Known Member
RV-4 Drivers. In light of the recent thread, I figured I would add a poll. Which type of landing do you usually do when flying the RV-4. 3 Point or Wheel Landing?
 
I know it's personal preference but I'd like to know if any of you feel there is a specific advantage to one over the other.
 
3-point advanges

I know it's personal preference but I'd like to know if any of you feel there is a specific advantage to one over the other.

The advance of the 3-point is the slower touchdown speed, less tire wear, and less brake wear.
 
After about 2,000 hours in RV-4s

I feel there is much better control and shorter landings in 3-point landings. Rarely would I even think about doing a wheel-landing.

Jake Thiessen
Independence, OR
 
For me, it depends on varying factors. Grass, asphalt, long or short runway, etc..

The reality is; I enjoy every landing in the -4 and IMO, it's easier than a 172.
 
I normally wheel land. About the only time I do not, is when landing distance is an issue,, which is rarely. But I can get the airplane stopped in a surprisingly short distance, even with a wheel landing.

Crosswinds,? Most definitely a wheel landing.

Above all else: wheel landings are more fun :)

Just my preferences
 
I only really found wheelies useful in the -4 when conditions were very gusty/turbulent at ground level. In those conditions, nothing is easy, but attempting to 3-point in those conditions was more likely to get you a slam down and/or balloon back up. Smooth x-wind, no reason not to 3-point unless you're out of rudder at 3-point touchdown speed for the amount x-wind present. It's a myth that wheelies are generally better in x-wind. Of course, 3-point is a misnomer in x-wind - it's a 2-point landing of course - main and tailwheel.
 
As drivers of these fine machines, were pretty lucky with the docile characteristics of the -4, as it is one of the easiest landing airplanes out there. Typically, I find the three point landing is usually the attitude seen in the flare and it seems to roll on from there. Every ounce in a while I like to wheel land it for practice...
 
Thanks for all the replies, gentlemen! I've been a 3 pointer since I started flying RV's several years ago. I learned in the -6, carried it to the -7 and now 3 point in the -4.

For the time being, I'm going to continue with what I've learned...even in the wind. Maybe it's just what you get used to but I've always been a little uneasy about that transition time to get the tail from flying to stalled while rolling down the runway. I'd almost rather stall a few feet off the ground and land on all three than catch a gust on the tail while it's still flying and send my prop in to the asphalt.

Good thread!!! :)
 
Interesting that the poll is split exactly down the middle, isn't it? If one technique were all that you needed , then half the people are wrong (or the other half is wrong, however you look at it...).

The truth is, if any one tells you that you should ALWAYS use one technique (or the other), you probably have someone that doesn't quite understand the whole gamut of tailwheel flying. It is normal to have a preference one way or another - and a technique for particular airplanes - but if you are nervous about one technique (or the other), then you know what you should think about going to work on, shouldn't you?;)

Landings are fun - practice them all until you really can land just about any way that works - under a given set of circumstances.
 
Interesting that the poll is split exactly down the middle, isn't it? If one technique were all that you needed , then half the people are wrong (or the other half is wrong, however you look at it...).

The truth is, if any one tells you that you should ALWAYS use one technique (or the other), you probably have someone that doesn't quite understand the whole gamut of tailwheel flying. It is normal to have a preference one way or another - and a technique for particular airplanes - but if you are nervous about one technique (or the other), then you know what you should think about going to work on, shouldn't you?;)

Landings are fun - practice them all until you really can land just about any way that works - under a given set of circumstances.

Good points Iron! I just got back from a practice session with mostly wheel landings. Practice is definitely something we should all take away here.

I will say, one could do 3 point landings in every circumstance and land safely, even in a strong crosswind. Conversely, in an engine out scenario to a farmer's field, the last thing you want to do is a wheel landing. Especially given the landing distance and RV's tendency to flip or nose over on off airport emergency landings. To anyone first learning to fly an RV, my advice is to perfect 3 point landings first, then practice wheel landings to see which you prefer.

Last point and I know I will never convince anyone since this is a never ending debate. I nerd'd out and did some Kinetic energy calculations. Just carrying 10 extra knots at touch down as one may do during a wheel landing vs a 3 point, KE increased by 30% (216K joules vs 278K joules energy at touchdown).
 
Wheelie

I have a short gear RV 4 180 HP with a FP and find that the wheel landing work best for me. Trying to do a full stall landing the tail will normally hit first, bounces up then the main gear hits and now I start hobby horsing down the runway. (I hate it when that happens)

Wheelie it on and it's a piece of cake. I have 150hrs in the RV4 and a couple hundred more in numerous Citabrias and Decathlons and I always 3 pointed those planes.

But for me the RV 4 requires a different technique, Wheelie...........................
 
What's your speed over the numbers? I used to have that same thing happen, then I took 5knots off my speeds. At 60knots over the numbers or 55knots for short field, it's easy to stick it.
 
I have a short gear RV 4 180 HP with a FP and find that the wheel landing work best for me. Trying to do a full stall landing the tail will normally hit first, bounces up then the main gear hits and now I start hobby horsing down the runway. (I hate it when that happens)

Well of course. You're not trying to stall it, you're trying to 3-point it!
 
Well of course. You're not trying to stall it, you're trying to 3-point it!

A full stall landing is a 3 point landing.

And with the short gear 4's, the little wheel on the tail will hit the ground before the main and then the hobby horse oscillation starts. Now I can do a tail low landing but that is technically a wheel landing and if your too fast you will balloon up again and if your too slow you will drop and bounce.
 
A full stall landing is a 3 point landing.

And with the short gear 4's, the little wheel on the tail will hit the ground before the main and then the hobby horse oscillation starts. Now I can do a tail low landing but that is technically a wheel landing and if your too fast you will balloon up again and if your too slow you will drop and bounce.

Semantics is one thing, but you're speaking as if the only two options for landing are to full stall it and accept the nose high mainwheel slam down, or to wheel land it. Most tailwheel airplanes I've flown will hit the tailwheel first for a less than graceful landing if you truly get the stick/yoke fully aft before touchdown. Full stalling is not the objective unless your airplane actually sits at such a nose high attitude on the ground. The J-3 Cub and Stearman are pretty close to the stall attitude.

In the majority of tailwheel airplanes, a 3-point landing is just that - touching down simultaneously on all three wheels. This requires precise attitude control at touchdown....not necessarily trying to stall the airplane onto the ground.

I guess I've just never heard of anyone referring to a 3-point landing which happens to be above stall speed as being a wheel landing. A wheel landing is universally accepted as touching down mains first and rolling along the mains before allowing the tailwheel to settle at a time selected by the pilot.
 
Last edited:
I read a lot about landing an airplane convinced I will never know everything there is to know about it.

Landing is a challenge in part because the pilot can not always know the wind. In perfectly calm air, it is easy and usually consistent. Also over the years one tends to develop techniques peculiar to a specific airplane, at least I do. Those techniques do not always transfer to another airplane especially going from a nose wheel to a tail wheel. In one the center of lift is forward of the gear in the other it is aft. The difference in landing characteristics is significant. There in lies the challenge.

Anyway, I've attached a couple exerts from a piece Van wrote for the RVator years ago on Landing the RV, some may find it informative.

j90vnl.png

5zmqzp.png
 
That is an excellent article,

The RV's are certainly unique compared to other aircraft that we have flown. At least for me as to what was easy for me in the Citabrias and Decathlons is certainly more difficult in my airplane. I have had to adjust my style from normally full stall landings in the Citabrias and Decathlons to wheeling it on in my RV4. Practice makes perfect and I do work on improving my 3 point landing and I do surprise myself with an occasional greaser (feels goooood) but with the Shorter Gear it will always be more challenging. At this point in time the Wheelie is the safest for me and safety is what counts.

Related to the RV4 there is lots of stuff on the forum that talks about short gear long gear, gear conversions, crow hopping, hobby horsing and prop strikes. But nothing about converting from a long gear to a short gear :D but lots about going from a short gear to a long gear. I'm thinking it's probably relative to the unique landing characteristics' of our 4's.
 
That is an excellent article,
Practice makes perfect and I do work on improving my 3 point landing and I do surprise myself with an occasional greaser (feels goooood) but with the Shorter Gear it will always be more challenging. At this point in time the Wheelie is the safest for me and safety is what counts.

Related to the RV4 there is lots of stuff on the forum that talks about short gear long gear, gear conversions, crow hopping, hobby horsing and prop strikes. But nothing about converting from a long gear to a short gear :D but lots about going from a short gear to a long gear. I'm thinking it's probably relative to the unique landing characteristics' of our 4's.

For what it's worth, I have a short geared -4 also. I think what you're seeing with the bounces is from too much airspeed like I said earlier. PM me if you want to chat anymore about that but I understand if you aren't comfortable with it.

3 point landings in the RV-4 are the easiest tailwheel landings I've ever made. Learned on J-3 Cub (almost always wheel landed) and have flown about 10 other TW airplanes with about 350hrs TW total.

But you know what they say, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it.
 
At 1600 pounds with full flaps my stall speed is 62 mph indicated. My approach is 81 mph and then over the fence at 78 mph. At 1300 pds it stalls at 59 mph. My approach is set at 77 and over the fence at 74.

I have a graph that I put together for this but as you can see, there is not much of a change between fully loaded and lightly loaded.

The majority of the stall reduction is done in the first 15 degs of flap. The remaining flap only adds drag.
In having a wooden fixed pitch I need all of the drag reduction I can get.

Quite possibly the difference between having a constant speed prop versus the fixed pitch adds to the differences in the handling? Maybe the CSP and the associated drag reduces the hobbyhorse effect? Lots of variables between planes so maybe we are not even comparing apples to apples.
 
At 1600 pounds with full flaps my stall speed is 62 mph indicated. My approach is 81 mph and then over the fence at 78 mph. At 1300 pds it stalls at 59 mph. My approach is set at 77 and over the fence at 74.

I have a graph that I put together for this but as you can see, there is not much of a change between fully loaded and lightly loaded.

The majority of the stall reduction is done in the first 15 degs of flap. The remaining flap only adds drag.
In having a wooden fixed pitch I need all of the drag reduction I can get.

Quite possibly the difference between having a constant speed prop versus the fixed pitch adds to the differences in the handling? Maybe the CSP and the associated drag reduces the hobbyhorse effect? Lots of variables between planes so maybe we are not even comparing apples to apples.

I think our stall speeds are the biggest difference. I stall at 52 mph at 1600lbs and 48 mph at 1300lbs with full flaps. I'll test again for partial flaps but I think that's about the same. I have a 1000lb empty weight rv4 with 0320 and whirlwind ground adjustable composite prop btw.
 
Back
Top