B-17 landing

[Matt308]

Which one Jimmy?

 

[jimh]

I'll be the first to buy the first round...

Jim

 

[Matt308]

Give me the N number or your internet meta data...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The tailwheel assembly is the achilles heal of the B-17. Wheel landings are preferred and then flying the tail to the ground. Tailwheel infrastructure parts are very very hard to come by and expensive to replace. The video shows a tail high landing..we call it "pinning" and is done with forward elevator...you will not get the props...nor do you need to ride the brakes. If you are using the brakes over 50mph indicated you don't have proper directional control or there is one heck of a crosswind...which is easily dealt with using aileron or the upwind engines. When you get a pilots license and a B-17 type rating let me know we will discuss it further.

Jim Harley

Just a question - I fly tail draggers. If the tail wheel is the achilles heel of the aircraft, why pin the the aircraft in a wheels landing and allow the tail to just drop when their aircraft comes to an almost dead stop?

 

[jimh]

Meta Data? ok The N number is NL93012...and I am one of the volunteer pilots...I also fly the B-25, and B-24.

Jim

Just a question - I fly tail draggers. If the tail wheel is the achilles heel of the aircraft, why pin the the aircraft in a wheels landing and allow the tail to just drop when their aircraft comes to an almost dead stop?

I agree that was a bit rough...but not nearly as hard as a three point landing or holding firm back pressure (like you do 99% of all tailwheel airplanes). The landing in the video looked a bit fast...if you try to force the tail down you will go flying again. Ideally you fly the tailwheel on...with full forward pressure on the yoke it will come down gently and when it is ready. You can easily operate a B-17 out of 4000' without abusing the brakes and wheel it on. Let me put it this way...the way we operate ours is in the best interest of the longevity of the airframe. Keeping the tailwheel unloaded is our primary concern.

 

[Corsair82pilot]

I'm not a pilot, but what are the chances of having a prop strike the ground while performing a landing like that? Seems to me the cost of new props, and possible engine damage would make you think twice before doing something like that?

When you do a wheel landing (as opposed to a full stall or three point) in a taildragger, you put the stick or yoke full forward to keep the aircraft on the ground. The airflow over the horizontal stab will not allow a prop strike, unless you hit the brakes. You then let the tail fly its self down to the ground. This bleeds off airspeed. You can't put the tail down because if you pull back on the stick, the aircraft will fly back off the ground. That is how you land a taildragger on a short field, or if you were too fast on your approach.

My Townsend Thunderbird

 

[Matt308]

Hmmm... sounds like common sense 82Pilot. You sure on a an adequately long runway you wouldn't unpin the wheel, ride the brakes to keep the airframe horizontal to the ground and at the last second time the tail drop to perfectly ease 'er to the ground? Perhaps that would be common practice for a 100ft long 50,000lb airplane that is historically priceless. Surely you must be mistaken.

wink wink

 

[Corsair82pilot]

Bullshit. That pilot was hotdoggin' on a adequately long runway smartass. His stunt is common practice to impress neophytes with the perceived pilot's ego while flying a priceless piece of history. I've seen many of these same stunts where the braking moderation was misjudged and the tail dropped like the proverbial 5th story safe.

Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is not appreciated on this forum. Your first point was noted. Your last was insulting.

You don't seem know anything about flying taildraggers. You shouldn't make such accusations.

 

[Messy1]

It's quite a sight to watch those old birds fly on a video. But nothing beats being there in person.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree that was a bit rough...but not nearly as hard as a three point landing or holding firm back pressure (like you do 99% of all tailwheel airplanes). The landing in the video looked a bit fast...if you try to force the tail down you will go flying again. Ideally you fly the tailwheel on...with full forward pressure on the yoke it will come down gently and when it is ready. You can easily operate a B-17 out of 4000' without abusing the brakes and wheel it on. Let me put it this way...the way we operate ours is in the best interest of the longevity of the airframe. Keeping the tailwheel unloaded is our primary concern.

I work at the Air Force Academy on the soaring program. My company owns the Super Cubs that are used for towing and I'll bring the tail down just as you say. When I get a chance to fly our cubs I'll do wheel landings because we always have some kind of cross or variable winds, let alone a lot of wind shear in the warmer months. Even though "its a cub" and built like a tank, I try to be as careful as I can as these planes are part of our bread and butter.

Now with my A&P hat on - I cringed when I saw that B-17's tail hit the ground.

 

[Matt308]

You don't seem know anything about flying taildraggers. You shouldn't make such accusations.

I was being sarcastic... I'm assuming that you agree with me that keeping a B-17 full horizontal by riding the brakes until the last second on an adequately long runway only to drop her tail smoothly is a stunt. Not SOP. Please tell me you don't agree with Mr. Jim.

 

[Corsair82pilot]

Hmmm... sounds like common sense 82Pilot. You sure on a an adequately long runway you wouldn't unpin the wheel, ride the brakes to keep the airframe horizontal to the ground and at the last second time the tail drop to perfectly ease 'er to the ground? Perhaps that would be common practice for a 100ft long 50,000lb airplane that is historically priceless. Surely you must be mistaken.

wink wink

You could. But you also have to consider the wind. If you put the tail down with a wind that is not right down the runway, you will most likely ground loop the aircraft. That will take off your pops, wing tip and at least one of the landing gear. During WWII the airfields mostly were very large fields that would allow for takeoff and landing directly into the wind. You get the same effect on an aircraft carrier. Not so on a paved or grass strip.
I suggest that those of you who still have doubts, read a book called "Stick and Rudder". It is an old book written by a German in the 1930's. It is still considered the bible of taildragger pilots.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I suggest that those of you who still have doubts, read a book called "Stick and Rudder". It is an old book written by a German in the 1930's. It is still considered the bible of taildragger pilots.

I have a copy in my bathroom and read it regularly (no kidding)

 

[Corsair82pilot]

I was being sarcastic... I'm assuming that you agree with me that keeping a B-17 full horizontal by riding the brakes until the last second on an adequately long runway only to drop her tail smoothly is a stunt. Not SOP. Please tell me you don't agree with Mr. Jim.

If he were on the brakes he would have struck the props and nosed over.

 

[Matt308]

With a 50,000lb aircraft? Nope. Stunt. Newton's Laws will be applied the same, but will operationally be much different from a 3,000lb taildragger and a 50,000lb taildragger. I've seen too many of these large planes stunt-flown for supposed crowd pleasure. The rotational momentum vector between these two classes of aircraft allow for such stunts while minimizing the safety risk. I just don't condone it.

 

[jimh]

Here's a bad landing...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnoHn0PGCM

Also...the French B-17 that crashed during the filming of the "memphis belle" in 1988...loss of directional control on takeoff. The throttles were found open and no attempt to abort was made. Tragic.

jim

 

[Messy1]

that looked like one hell of a ride!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's a bad landing...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnoHn0PGCM

That's the same B-17 from the first clip!

 

[Matt308]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Far from condescending and holier than thou...I'm sick of armchair aviators with NO flight time and NO flying experience commenting on events or abilities for which they have no first hand experience. Insulting a pilots ability with nothing to back it up with but hot air is an insult to our community and goes way beyond a condescending statement. I have over 500 hours of B-17 time and have been flying it for close to 6 years. I can assure you that there are NO B-17 operators "hotdogging" or "showing off" for thier own personal satisfaction.

Jim Harley

Hey *******!

You are not the only person here with flight experience. We have everything from private fliers to people with P-51 time to even an actual B-17 pilot who flew in the war.

Do you know what I get sick and tired of?

Assholes like yourself who think you are the only ones who fly.

Do not come into this forum with an attitude, do you understand! Most of us may not have experience flying B-17s or what not, but that does not give you the right to have an attitude to other members of the forum.

You can get your point across without being a fricken prick!