Fisherman,

Fooling around-fabrication, modification, paperwork, etc..

MTV

mtv wrote:Fisherman,

Fooling around-fabrication, modification, paperwork, etc..

MTV

Ah! I get it now. Thanks. Not aviation related but I've been involved with a little bit of that Monkey Motion on drilling rigs in the Gulf.

Tailwheel steering on stock 170's is so bad, I can't imagine why anyone would three point these things normally.

Mike,

There must be something wrong with your tailwheel. Find a different mechanic and get it rigged properly.

Bill

The funny thing is that both Snoopydoc and I have gotten worse at landing the 170 the more we fly it. I'm not sure what to make of that, other than the inevitable result of the blind leading the blind. Honestly I'm amazed my wife will let me ride in the airplane with her...about my only real contribution is to point out what she's doing wrong right as she's correcting it. It's about as endearing a trait as booger eating.

Everything goes fine until that last 12 inches... I'm sure part of the problem is that our beloved 140 LOVED to 3-point. It has great tailwheel steering, and it's so stable on touchdown that I just never had much use for wheel landings. The 170, on the other hand, does not like three point landings at all. Combined with the different visual cues and greater momentum and, well, this set of tires won't last long...

[quote="Hammer"]

Everything goes fine until that last 12 inches... I'm sure part of the problem is that our beloved 140 LOVED to 3-point. It has great tailwheel steering, and it's so stable on touchdown that I just never had much use for wheel landings. The 170, on the other hand, does not like three point landings at all. Combined with the different visual cues and greater momentum and, well, this set of tires won't last long...[/quote]

I learned in my Luscombe with a stiff gear and it would 3 point and wheel just fine. I transitioned into a 170B and it took some getting used to. Matter of fact I took a trip up to British Columbia and back via Idaho, Montana, etc. about 30 hours. After that I got used to the 170 to where I was comfortable in it.

My recollections of the 170 is that it liked to plop down in the 3 point. So that does make it a little more interesting. Wheel landings are good also. Just fly it to the ground through ground effect.

170's have a aft swept gear like the early 180's. 55' and later they went 3'' forward to put more weight on the mains. Made for crappier 3 points. A friend of mine has a 54' 180 and I have a 55' with the later gear and I can make smoother 3 points with his.

Also 170's had softer spring gear, I have heard called lady legs like the 195's. 195's had an option of soft spring steel or heavy duty(stiff) gear from the factory.

I might be able to reccommend some people who are pretty handy in the 170 if you are interested.

WW

Flat Country,

That was my point precisely. MY tailwheel IS rigged properly, but I'm betting you have a 54 or 55 airplane? The 52's all have REALLY soft steering, for several reasons, and you can't just "adjust" this characteristic out of them. You have to change some things in the system.

The later airplanes had a MUCH better steering geometry, and inherently much better steering to start with.

Hammer,

So, clarify precisely what's going on in your landings.... Where lies the problem? Is it directional control after touchdown, or are you dropping it in on landing? If directional control seems a bit wild, I'd STRONGLY recommend putting the airplane on grease plates and align the gear. That is a common problem with Cessnas of all vintages, but 170's seem to be worse than others.

If you're having trouble dropping it in during wheel landings, try tail low wheel landings. Come in at a normal glide slope, kill the power on short final, allowing a bit of sink to develop, rotate the nose up, and catch the sink with some power. Doesn't take much power, but the idea here is to work power against drag, and you've got lots of drag in those flaps. Rotate the nose up to almost hte three point attitude, touch (with power on), then yoke forward, power to idle. Oh, yeah--and steer.

The tail low condition allows you to touch slower, the power allows you to arrest the sink rate, and modulate it to where you want it.

I don't know if I've described this adequately, but....

MTV

I don't have a lot of Cessna taildragger experience, but tgey wheel so well and slow, why would you even want to three point. Maule, I understand, Cessna, I don't. If you have any toe-in in your gear, no one will make pretty roll outs. Put it on grease plates, and I would suggest raise the tail to flight attitude.
The tools are a little expensive though, you'll need a plumb bob, framing square, and a chalk line. If budget is a problem, a rock and string will work for the plumb bob and a straight piece of lumber for the framing square.

a64,

Interesting--I always thought the Maule really liked wheel landings as well. Course, I generally think that about most tailwheel planes. Only one I've ever flown much on wheels was an M-7 235.

MTV

A Maule wheels on fine, as long as you carry power and land 10 MPH faster than it three points.
I don't know the number, but a Maule has a very low angle of incidence for a bush type of plane, one reason for the high cruise speed when compared to the stall speed. In slow flight, a Maule is rather nose high, which negates slow wheel landings. Drop those long flaps to drop the nose and it is very "draggy", so you have to carry power or come in fast and bleed off speed in the flare at the bottom. Of course being real "draggy" makes real steep approach angles possible. Now put extended gear and / or real big tires and you of course effectively increase the wings angle of incidence. The angle of incidence is the same, but the angle of attack is higher before the tailwheel touches. A stock Maule in short landing mode will touch the tailwheel down well before the mains. Old man Maule I think nicknamed it the kerplop type of landing. I think a Maule is a tail heavy airplane as well, That's a belief, but I've not weighed any tailwheel aircraft at a non flight attitude, so I'm not sure.
I haven't flown a lot of conventional geared aircraft, but my impression is that a Maule isn't real graceful ground handling wise, sort of a gooney bird, it's strengths are in the air.
Now of course my fellow Maule owners will become enraged and point out that the real reason is because I'm a piss poor pilot

Hammer and Snoopydoc

Here is my two cents....maybe one cent.

First I love the fact that after many hours the 170 is still challenging to fly. I still get humbled by my landings after many years and hours of flying.

I feel your pain on the wheel vs 3 point landings and had the same trouble with them. Still get caught with a bad one when I get lazy.

CG. I think the CG of the 170 is a big thing. It sounds like one of you has a larger motor. My experience is that the 170 is already a nose heavy airplane. Any extra weight over the years plus the IO360 make it very nose heavy. With 1 or 2 up front and full gas you even get more nose heavy. Try some weight in the baggage area to help get the 3 pointers down.

Flaps. I find that the more flaps I put in the more nose down moment I get. With the CG far forward(ie 2 dudes and gas) and full flaps I find that the airplane will run out of elevator before it wants to quit flying in the 3 point attitude.

Sounds like you have the wheelies down.
There are a thousand different techniques for 3 points but here is my method. Sight picture is everything so memorize the 3 point attitude of the airplane. Top of dashboard reference to the horizon. Look at the end of the runway vice the point of touchdown. Sounds like you are touching down a little flat (tail high) in the 3 point. When the mains hit the weight of the tail pushes the tail down, increases AOA and you go flying again. Bounce. Try to touch down tail low, and maybe for your first few actually error to touching the tailwheel a hair before the mains. This will give you the sight picture. When the airplane lands peg the tail down with full aft elevator.
Also you may be flying to fast. Try coming in a few knots slower each time and see how that works. The reason the plain bounces on landing and porpoises down the runway if because it still has enough airspeed to fly. I find that I flair about 5 knots slower if I am planning on the 3 point vs wheel.

Try grass runways. I think the 170 was made for grass and it helps in the learning process.

By the way I have a 52B and the tailwheel steering is some of the worst of any I have flown. I agree with posts above.

Feel free to drop me a PM for a phone # or come on down to SAC and you can laugh at me while try to show you what I am talking about.

Buzz,

Interesting observations. I have an O-360 Lyc, and a Hartzell 80 inch prop, with harmonic damper, which is the setup Hammer has as well. This is about as nose heavy as a 170 gets, I believe, but maybe the IO-360 Continentals are heavier forward.

In any case, I've never felt like my airplane runs out of elevator, and I can easily land tailwheel first, WITH POWER.

Use of power is a crutch at times, but it can make the airplane sing.

I think Hammer said he got the three point well enough, but it was wheel landings he was struggling with. ANyway, as you say, it takes experimentation, and maybe flying with someone who's familiar with the type.

MTV

Again I really appreciate all your input and opinions (well, most of your opinions...) and have a few more comments/questions if you will. I haven't mastered the quoting ability of this forum sufficiently to quote multiple replies in one response so this will have to do.

And I am going to focus on and get down this landing business before I start worrying about Hammer's blue knob.

Zane, you asked about the leading edge and it does have the Horton STOL kit. Practicing slow flight and stalls at altitude, well, power on it just won't stall, it'll just hang there suspended with the airspeed indicator reading 0, pretty impressive really.

Someone mentioned perhaps we're coming in too fast and I am thinking that is probably the case and will try slowing it up. Any recommendations on approach and landing speeds? Right now I am aiming for 70 and 65 respectively with a passenger, 65 and 60 alone... that would be mph not knots. How slow do you think we can go?

As for the CFI issues, this has been a bit of a problem since I started to learn to fly the 140. We have a pretty young and budding flight school here on the field and there is not one instructor on board with them who has any 140 or 170 time. One of the mechanics on the field is a CFI who does most of the local tailwheel instruction and the fellow we bought the 140 from is a CFI but a full time attorney; he did Hammer's tail wheel endorsement and got me to my first solo, but then I had to supplement.

I can't really say much good or bad about my training; it is what it is/was what it was, and I was grateful I had these two guys I could work with. I also had a lot of help from Hammer as we spent a lot of time of course flying together. I trudged through the requirements for my checkride and did fine despite the, well, less then ideal teaching and training, but I tried to get the most out of it I could and I practiced, practiced, practiced.

I am no maverick, I have no false sense of immortality as so many young (or not so young) men have who learn to fly. I don't make assumptions and I don't take chances; I am very conservative in that regard. So while Mike may quiver in his britches at the idea of my being signed off to fly the 170 without a "complete checkout", I have no intention of being alone in that plane until I am absolutely confident that I have the skills, the practice and the tools I need to be safe. I know the 2 CFIs I have flown with know that about me, and whether or not that plays a part in their decisions I don't know.

That said yesterday afternoon I was able to get the mechanic CFI to go up with me in the 170 after being able to practice some slow flight and landings with Hammer earlier in the morning. The first thing he did (he had obviously seen some of our less then perfect attempts at 3 points) was ask if I had a couple of cases of oil. Sure I said, come to find out all the bottles were empty... How about that toolbox he said, that'll work. So he hoisted one of the many, many hangar toolboxes and slid it into the back of the plane, laid it on it's side and secured it.

I had been kidding about the 50 lb bag of salt in the back of the plane to help with the bouncy landings, which a couple of you guys picked right up on, but hey, it really helped. It was a little more squirrelly on the two point take-offs and we could actually get a power on stall at elevation with the extra 50 plus pounds in the back. So we need to get a really heavy survival gear bag back there, or better yet, a pony keg, yeah, that'd work. So the trick as many of you have stated is to try and keep that tail low on approach and landing, and slow it down. It's all coming together and the forecast is calling for sunny skies.

Again, I have appreciated all you have had to say and I'll be working or Hammer's blue knob soon.

1) I agree with the tactic of adding aft ballast to help with the 3 pointers.
2) The skywagon website has/had a very good article by Bill White about wheel landing Cessna's. Does anyone have the web address for this?
3) Approach speed-- I hear people talk/ask about what approach speed to use, when I ask what the airplane stalls at power-off they tell me "the book sez...". Trouble is, they're not flying the book, they're flying their airplane. I would suggest going up and doing some power-off stalls at the most common weight/loading, and (for starters) using 1.15 times that speed for approach. Mine stalls at about 47 or so, I put a hashmark on the airspeed indicator at 65 that I use as a V-ref speed-- it's good for wheelies, come kin a bit slower for 3 pointers, a bit slower yet with power for short fields, a bit aster with power for heavy loads.
4) Instructors: I think instructors are there to safely teach you the basics, it's up to the pilot to perfect them. After all, it is a "license to learn". After getting taught the basics, you can vary techniques to find what works (and doesn't work) for you in your airplane.
Good luck with it.

Eric

Doc,

Glad you are making progress. I'm not quivering in my britches for your flying your airplane. I'm always just surprised that aircraft owners will spend tens of thousands of dollars for an airplane, but apparently it doesn't occur to them or theyre unwilling to travel to a CFI, or pay his travel to them to really get them checked out in that very expensive plane.

I'm not suggesting that's the case here, mind you. I'd bet that five to ten hours of work in that plane with a good instructor, familiar with the type or something similar would have you pretty comfortable in it. Many folks take a few hours to really get comfortable in a new plane.

You have to do what is comfortable for you, though. My point is that spending some time with an instructor should eliminate most of those jitters you obviously been having.

Now that you've spent a lot of money on that thing, take a look at Selkirk
s extended baggage compartments. Those are a great place to stow some survival gear, getting it even further aft than the standard baggage.

Enjoy the plane, and keep at it.

MTV

Snoopydoc,

I'm no CFI, but here are a few observations. Take it or leave it.

I try to keep my plane light, 54 170B. It's 1280 lbs empty and I don't add ballast for three point landings. Stock engine.

At altitude, for landing purposes I practice power off stalls. Because when landing in the three point attitude I have the power pulled off. I don't fixate on the airspeed because my CFIs want me looking outside and not at the panel. My plane stalls at about 48 mph, + or -, depending on flaps.

My private strip is situated so that every landing is either a short turn to final or over the 50' obstacle, trees. I start at 500' agl, keep 70mph, 1500rpm and 2nd notch of flaps until my final manuevering is done and I'm looking straight at the runway. Then I decrease power, pitch for 60 mph and adjust flaps accordingly, or not. When I know I will make my touch down spot, I pull the power off.

Now is why I practice stalls at altitude. I keep my eyes looking outside, focus on directional control and look way down the runway. When I flair, 55mph? maybe, I want to hear the stall horn and pitch for the three point attitude. If the flying speed is gone, and you touch three point or slightly tail wheel first, you shouldn't bounce. Touching tailwheel first can result in the plopping down of the mains and I don't like that. Picture flying the plane right onto the runway in the three point attitude.

Don't come in too slow and stall. If you have too much airspeed, the plane floats down the runway like a spray plane.

I'm sure there is nothing wrong with your CFIs, but nothing wrong with flying with another one.

Any way, take it for what it's worth.

Bill

I used a 60mph approach speed (max) in my '54 (stock engined) C-170B
that had a Sportsman STOL kit on it. If the winds were calm and I was
by myself + relatively light, and I felt like practicing my short landings,
I used a 45mph approach speed (I used something in between 45mph
and 60mph for variations on load + wind conditions).

Only way to get an airplane to quit flying during a 3-point landing
is to have it stall (preferably, not more than a few inches off the
ground). If there is any excess flying speed, the wing will continue
to make lift and making her stick to the ground will be difficult.

Not sure on the configuration of the STOL kit on your airplane, but
with the Sportsman kit, it adds a significant amount of wing area.
More wing = more lift... Mine would fly all day long maintaining
altitude at 35mph indicated, and would also just do a falling-leaf
mush at 0mph indicated in a stall, so again, if I approached a
landing with excess speed, she didn't want to quit flying until the
lift went out of the wing.

I agree that practice is the only way to make it click... but the process
might go quicker with a CFI intimately familiar with the 170B.

Flat Country may have hit on some of what's going on here: Spotting the landings.

I find with many folks that they start trying to "spot" the landing, ie: look right at where they are going to land. They may not stare at it, but they're looking there.

Instead, you need to look way down at the far end of the runway at the very least, or better yet, something out on the horizon for your reference point.

I find that students will gradually start to bounce more and more when they are first working in a plane. I tell them to stop trying to spot the landing, and to focus way out on the horizon for their reference. You're using your peripheral vision to make this work, and it works well.

Often, that is all that's required. I suspect this may be the case with you folks, since you note your landings are getting worse.

Good one, Flat Country.

MTV

Hi Eric

2) The skywagon website has/had a very good article by Bill White about wheel landing Cessna's. Does anyone have the web address for this?

If you go to the 180/185 website and go tho members only, aircraft classifieds, operating tips, you will find Bill White's landing techniques there
Eric[/quote]
Hope that helps. It helped me. Have a good one Gary

Members only area, huh? Bummer. I never have been too big on that members only stuff, ever since they came out with those jackets.....

Eric

Eric

You don't have to be a member to to access that part, only to post on there, I think. If you can't get it, I can copy it for you and email it to you.

Gary