dustrpilot

It can be done, but my experience in my Pitts was that sink rate and stall speed set you up for a three point landing. Not a full stall landing because in mine, when it touched down, it was still flying some. This is why I believe most Pitts dance around and chirp the tires when landing on asphalt or concrete. The pilot probably isn't touching the brakes, the plane is just skipping a little. I could hear my tires and I knew I wasn't on the brakes.
What I settled on was a three point landing and at touch down, I'd push the tail up so I could see then let the tail settle back down on its own.
I'm in no way a Pitts expert, just my opinion.

Airhoss

By all means then you should call it a three point landing.

Flight Test

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Shakespeare

propfails2FX

Such an age old argument! I discussed this topic over beers with an ex-RNZAF Dakota pilot and ex-RAF Shackleton pilot. Both told me they'd catch grief from the crew if they wheel landed. "What's the matter mate, you can't bloody 3 point the thing."

The ex-Dak pilot was a 61 year old active duty SQNLDR (with only 6 years break in service since commissioning). He gave me two flights in the sole RNZAF Harvard still operated by Central Flying School before I started a civilian AT-6 conversion. He looked me dead in the eyes and said, "Don't ever three point a Harvard on a sealed (paved) runway." The man is the most competent pilot I know with lots of close calls. He was actually an AT-6 QFI back in the seventies. I'd never seen his blood pressure rise one bit until it was time for me to learn to land the Harvard.

I did give the old three pointer a shot on a sealed runway (the syndicate's Harvard had a lockable tailwheel, the RNZAF's didn't). Slack winds, easy conditions. Worked out, but I was NERVOUS. Kept it wheelers on the seal, 3 pointers on the grass from then on.

Airhoss

No disrespect to your friend intended here.

I've made hundreds and hundreds of three point landings on pavement in a T-6 (SNJ). I don't get what the big deal is?

All of the the T-6's I've flown had locking tailwheels. I see form rereading your post that the Harvards that he flew did not. That would make a difference.

propfails2FX

No offence taken Hoss. The SQNLDR I'm referring to actually gave me an article about landing the Harvard/Texan/SNJ. It stated that wheel landings are dangerous when the tailwheel is being lowered to the ground. The article recommended three pointers.

We all bring opinions/styles/techniques to flying. Most of them we didn't conjure up, but were passed by a pilot more senior to us. I've seen this throughout a wide range of flying. X-wind landing techniques, round loops verse egg shaped, wind corrections to VREF. All of them passed from generation to generation.

The syndicate I fly with completely avoids negative G's and fuel starvation to the Harvard engine. During my flights in the RNZAF AT-6, I learned the restart procedure after my IP shut the engine down. I also learned stall turns (hammer heads) and slow rolls in the RNZAF bird. The syndicate CFI I flew with during my conversion was startled when I slow rolled and stall turned the Harvard. He thought it was bad practice.

One pilot's norm is the next person's bad habit. I spun and stall turned a Yak-52 before I flew with an owner who thought I was nuts for doing so because of the potential to enter a flat spin. He passed me an article relating to extremely high control forces required to exit flat spins in a Yak. Didn't think twice when I was spinning and stall turning....just like you don't when you three point to a paved runway.