How do tailsitters land?

I was just looking at an article about tailsitter aircraft, and I wonder-how do they land? If they require a runway, wouldn't that defeat the design's entire purpose, as tailsitter-type aircraft were made to be used without a runway?
 
I was just looking at an article about tailsitter aircraft, and I wonder-how do they land? If they require a runway, wouldn't that defeat the design's entire purpose, as tailsitter-type aircraft were made to be used without a runway?

At least one was designed to use a hook and land on a platform, most though simply made a vertical landing, not easy without computer assistance or downward facing cameras.
 
The same way they take off- vertically (at least, in all the examples I found). The reason they never took off, as it were, was that it's bloody near impossible to land the thing unless you have the neck of an owl. When the Harrier-type concepts started becoming common, the VTOL advantage of tailsitters was nullified, and the disadvantage of being completely unable to see your landing was removed.
 
Tailsitters also had the disadvantage of disorienting the pilot while a bit while taking off and landing, since he was lying on his back rather than sitting upright.
 
The major problem was how to transition from forward flight using wing lift to the hover using the props. You`d basically have to do some sort of hammerhead, like at an airshow, but over the back of a destroyer at sea.
 
Tailsitters also had the disadvantage of disorienting the pilot while a bit while taking off and landing, since he was lying on his back rather than sitting upright.

To mitigate this problem, couldn't a tail-sitting aircraft theoretically have the pilot lie in the prone position? This could also help with landings if the cockpit had a 360 degree view; the pilot would be able to see where he was landing. Would this possibly work for an aircraft of a tail-sitting configuration?
 
To mitigate this problem, couldn't a tail-sitting aircraft theoretically have the pilot lie in the prone position? This could also help with landings if the cockpit had a 360 degree view; the pilot would be able to see where he was landing. Would this possibly work for an aircraft of a tail-sitting configuration?
You still can't see right underneath the aircraft in that position, the aircraft itself sits in the way.

The near suicidally difficult landings and the very high thrust-power requirements are what killed tail-sitters, too difficult to make and use despite the helicopter-like take-off and landing performance.
 
I think the answer to how tail sitters land is unless the pilot is a highly skilled test pilot they land as a burning ball of twisted metal and flesh. It's not just that the pilot can't see the ground beneath the aircraft, he's allso lying on his back as he lands. I suppose you could mount the cockpit in a gimble but that would just make the aircraft nose heavy.
 
Landings were actually tried in the few prototypes. Not only could the pilots not see the ground under them, they were unable to properly judge their rate of descent from that angle, so couldn't properly adjust their speed. The tailsitter concept was abandoned when it was realized that they could not be safely landed.

A similarly ill-conceived idea was to eliminate landing gear entirely, the idea being to replace the runway with what was basically a gigantic air mattress. It worked just as well as you might think; after several aircraft were damaged and several pilots reported spinal injuries the program was scrapped.
 
The latest NASA concept vehicle is the Puffin, with standing/prone pilot. Still a concept. The alternative is remotely piloted vehicle, an actual proven concept. The consequence of a crash is far less horrific.
 
Top