ARDave,
Can you PM it to me.
Wheelies
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
jon s blocker
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:56 pm
wheelies
ARDave, Would you also PM them to me as well. Thank you. Jon
-
AR Dave
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:06 pm
John I just re-visited this subject and see where you wanted that write up. I've got an 
Go to http://fp1.centurytel.net/170/ (Petit Jean 170 Website) and look in "My Notes" 
Go to http://fp1.centurytel.net/170/ (Petit Jean 170 Website) and look in "My Notes" -
jrenwick
- Posts: 2045
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 8:34 pm
I think I've just become a convert to wheel landings in my 170, if there's any gustiness in the winds. Yesterday I landed in a somewhat gusty right crosswind on runway 26 at Boyceville, WI (3T3). It was a good-enough 3-pointer with power at idle, but a second or two after the landing, N4401B took off again and was suddenly 5 or 10 feet in the air and too slow to stay there. I added a little power and recovered, again with a 3-pointer. This has happened to me before, but never quite as bad as this.
I had other things besides the gustiness going against me: Horton STOL kit (lowers the minimum flying speed), 850x6.00 tires (higher angle of attack in the 3-point position), and a slight downhill gradient to the runway. The 850s were on the airplane when I bought it. It's almost time to replace them, but as it happens, I have a lightly-used pair of 850 tires sitting in the hangar with nothing else to put them on, so I may stick with that size rather than buy a set of 600s.
I've downloaded and read the wheel-landing technique that Dave posted above (thanks, Dave!) and I'll start teaching myself to do that.
I tend to think that the choice of whether to do a wheelie or a 3-pointer depends more on the type of aircraft than anything else. I always 3-point my Cub, and I've never seen a reason to do otherwise, even in strong, gusty winds. The Swift, on the other hand, really wants to be wheeled on in any normal conditions -- visibility over the nose is a factor, but more importantly, it sinks really fast when brought up to the 3-point attitude.
I've always found 3-pointing my 170 easier than wheel-landing it, partly because I'm just not as proficient with wheelies, and partly because the Horton STOL kit makes it more prone to bounce if you put it down too hard. I've gotten the descent rate under control now, so the wheelies work much better, and they definitely will prevent the airplane becoming unexpectedly airborne after landing. I'm going to be doing a lot more of them in the future!
Happy Landings!
I had other things besides the gustiness going against me: Horton STOL kit (lowers the minimum flying speed), 850x6.00 tires (higher angle of attack in the 3-point position), and a slight downhill gradient to the runway. The 850s were on the airplane when I bought it. It's almost time to replace them, but as it happens, I have a lightly-used pair of 850 tires sitting in the hangar with nothing else to put them on, so I may stick with that size rather than buy a set of 600s.
I've downloaded and read the wheel-landing technique that Dave posted above (thanks, Dave!) and I'll start teaching myself to do that.
I tend to think that the choice of whether to do a wheelie or a 3-pointer depends more on the type of aircraft than anything else. I always 3-point my Cub, and I've never seen a reason to do otherwise, even in strong, gusty winds. The Swift, on the other hand, really wants to be wheeled on in any normal conditions -- visibility over the nose is a factor, but more importantly, it sinks really fast when brought up to the 3-point attitude.
I've always found 3-pointing my 170 easier than wheel-landing it, partly because I'm just not as proficient with wheelies, and partly because the Horton STOL kit makes it more prone to bounce if you put it down too hard. I've gotten the descent rate under control now, so the wheelies work much better, and they definitely will prevent the airplane becoming unexpectedly airborne after landing. I'm going to be doing a lot more of them in the future!
Happy Landings!
John Renwick
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
-
Paul-WI
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:23 pm
I went up last week with our local DNR pilot in my plane. Other than flying the DNR planes, he also flies a Bird Dog. Anyway, he demonstrated to me a beautiful wheel landing. I always blamed my wheel landings on the spring gears and 8.50 tires, but guess I will have to hone my skills on "wheelies".
Paul
Paul
Paul
N3458D
N3458D
-
hilltop170
- Posts: 3485
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm
Here's my 2¢ worth. I prefer wheel landings over full stall/3-point for many reasons.
It took me a long time back in 1973 to start doing consistent wheel landings. It was the hardest part of learning to fly the 170 for me. Now, I demonstrate full stall/3-point landings once a year at my C.A.P. annual checkride only if I'm asked to. I have never seen a situation where the appropriate type of wheel landing would not work.
I found flying a stabilized approach to the ground holding 70mph indicated with pitch, controlling glideslope with power, full flaps (I had a C-170A with small flaps, probably 2nd notch in a C-170B would be about the same), trimmed to neutral pressure on the control wheel, don't flare, just level out, ease off power, then touch down, slight forward pressure, and brake as required worked best for me while I was learning.
Pilots trying to learn wheel landings frequently can't resist the urge to flare which lowers the tail and invites the old crow-hop. The mains touch at a too-high angle of attack, then the tailwheel hits as the mains lift off again, then the mains touch again, etc, etc, etc until something else happens, sometimes involving broken tailwheels, springs, lower rudders, and even ground-loops. If the pilot can fight that urge to flare and hold it level while easing the plane to the ground, the hops can be prevented. Then when the mains touch, slight forward pressure will hold the plane on the ground. In no event should the pilot try to pin the plane on the ground before it actually has touched down. That can cause violent bounces.
I made a hard and fast rule, if I crow-hopped twice, I would not let it touch down the third time. I have seen them get progressively worse if the pilot "stays behind" the airplane and continues to try to make the landing. It's much better to just go around and try again from scratch.
The 170 main gear legs are so springy it takes a bunch of practice to get wheel landings down pat, but once you do, they are pure pleasure to do consistently well.
It took me a long time back in 1973 to start doing consistent wheel landings. It was the hardest part of learning to fly the 170 for me. Now, I demonstrate full stall/3-point landings once a year at my C.A.P. annual checkride only if I'm asked to. I have never seen a situation where the appropriate type of wheel landing would not work.
I found flying a stabilized approach to the ground holding 70mph indicated with pitch, controlling glideslope with power, full flaps (I had a C-170A with small flaps, probably 2nd notch in a C-170B would be about the same), trimmed to neutral pressure on the control wheel, don't flare, just level out, ease off power, then touch down, slight forward pressure, and brake as required worked best for me while I was learning.
Pilots trying to learn wheel landings frequently can't resist the urge to flare which lowers the tail and invites the old crow-hop. The mains touch at a too-high angle of attack, then the tailwheel hits as the mains lift off again, then the mains touch again, etc, etc, etc until something else happens, sometimes involving broken tailwheels, springs, lower rudders, and even ground-loops. If the pilot can fight that urge to flare and hold it level while easing the plane to the ground, the hops can be prevented. Then when the mains touch, slight forward pressure will hold the plane on the ground. In no event should the pilot try to pin the plane on the ground before it actually has touched down. That can cause violent bounces.
I made a hard and fast rule, if I crow-hopped twice, I would not let it touch down the third time. I have seen them get progressively worse if the pilot "stays behind" the airplane and continues to try to make the landing. It's much better to just go around and try again from scratch.
The 170 main gear legs are so springy it takes a bunch of practice to get wheel landings down pat, but once you do, they are pure pleasure to do consistently well.
Last edited by hilltop170 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
2023 Best Original 170A at Sault Ste. Marie
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
2023 Best Original 170A at Sault Ste. Marie
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
-
n1410d
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2002 2:21 am
This is a excellent rule of thumb. I have always taught my tailwheel students that if you can't get it on the ground in two hops (wheel or 3 point) you are going around. I don't care how many times the wheel touch the runway after that you are going around.hilltop170 wrote:I made a hard and fast rule, if I crow-hopped twice, I would not let it touch down the third time. I have seen them get progressively worse if the pilot "stays behind" the airplane and continues to try to make the landing. It's much better to just go around and try again from scratch.
Patrick Mahaffey
N1410D
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Imagine flying in level flight. Now imagine that level flight being one inch above the runway with the power off (or nearly so.) Now imagine the wheels rolling onto the runway. Now, try to descend by slight forward pressure on the yoke (or relaxing back-pressure against a forward-trimmed airplane that just rolled onto the runway.)
Many guys trying their first wheel landings are afraid of striking the prop. As long as no brakes are applied, ...don't worry about that. Even a very-forward shove on the yoke will only result in an airplane firmly stuck to the runway. (As the aircraft is rotated forward, more and more of the upper wing and tail surfaces are exposed to the relative wind, resisting a nose-over.)
Lower your tail to the ground prior to running out of effective elevator, and when the tailwheel touches....IMMEDIATELY pull the yoke full AFT to stick it to the ground.
Many guys trying their first wheel landings are afraid of striking the prop. As long as no brakes are applied, ...don't worry about that. Even a very-forward shove on the yoke will only result in an airplane firmly stuck to the runway. (As the aircraft is rotated forward, more and more of the upper wing and tail surfaces are exposed to the relative wind, resisting a nose-over.)
Lower your tail to the ground prior to running out of effective elevator, and when the tailwheel touches....IMMEDIATELY pull the yoke full AFT to stick it to the ground.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
-
blueldr
- Posts: 4442
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am
In my (non humble) opinion, any C-170 with the early gear (pre mid '53) is a real bastard to consistently land in a manner that is satisfying to a discriminating pilot. The so called "Lady Legs" gear installed from about mid '53 on is a giant step forward.
Anyone with one of the old style gears should be actively looking for a replacement set. They also make a great improvement in stiff crosswing taxying.
Anyone with one of the old style gears should be actively looking for a replacement set. They also make a great improvement in stiff crosswing taxying.
BL
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
BluElder, I have heard this from time to time, and considering the sources (experienced guys with time in those early-gear airplanes) I took it at face value for some time. Until I flew some of those early-gear airplanes. It took me about two attempts to adjust to that early gear's personality... and then it simply is no big deal.blueldr wrote:In my (non humble) opinion, any C-170 with the early gear (pre mid '53) is a real bastard to consistently land in a manner that is satisfying to a discriminating pilot. The so called "Lady Legs" gear installed from about mid '53 on is a giant step forward.
Anyone with one of the old style gears should be actively looking for a replacement set. They also make a great improvement in stiff crosswing taxying.
Now, since I am a guy with only average abilities, I am really perplexed about all the condemnation given those early gear legs. While I agree that they are shaped different, and their spring-rate is different (softer/springier/etc.) and all... Like so many other handling qualities which differ among various airframes/airplanes, and which call for different handling techniques, ...I just cannot agree that those early gears should be so universally condemned. They just require slightly different pilot technique. (One cannot "stick" it to the runway after it's been botched quite as easily as one can with the later gear...unless one can quickly adjust to "timing the bounce", if you know what I mean.) But I realy feel it's no different than saying "Anyone with one of the old style flaps should be actively looking for a replacement set." Baloney!
The difference in handling is why it takes a pilot to land this series airplane instead of an autoland system. If a pilot has not learned the finesse of the excersize he should either practice some more, seek some instruction from someone who has mastered it, or just avoid wheel landings entirely.
Otherwise ...."Anyone with one of the old style conventional gears should be actively looking for a replacement set of tri-cycles"... because that's all that it amounts to, in my not-so-humble opinion.
.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
-
doug8082a
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:06 am
George... I agree! I'm no high-time pilot, but I've actually received compliments on my wheelies in the early gear 170s. It's, as you said, a matter of getting to know the plane. Of course, other items like gear alignment, etc. also play a big role in handling.gahorn wrote:BluElder, I have heard this from time to time, and considering the sources (experienced guys with time in those early-gear airplanes) I took it at face value for some time. Until I flew some of those early-gear airplanes. It took me about two attempts to adjust to that early gear's personality... and then it simply is no big deal.blueldr wrote:In my (non humble) opinion, any C-170 with the early gear (pre mid '53) is a real bastard to consistently land in a manner that is satisfying to a discriminating pilot. The so called "Lady Legs" gear installed from about mid '53 on is a giant step forward.
Anyone with one of the old style gears should be actively looking for a replacement set. They also make a great improvement in stiff crosswing taxying.
Now, since I am a guy with only average abilities, I am really perplexed about all the condemnation given those early gear legs. While I agree that they are shaped different, and their spring-rate is different (softer/springier/etc.) and all... Like so many other handling qualities which differ among various airframes/airplanes, and which call for different handling techniques, ...I just cannot agree that those early gears should be so universally condemned. They just require slightly different pilot technique. (One cannot "stick" it to the runway after it's been botched quite as easily as one can with the later gear...unless one can quickly adjust to "timing the bounce", if you know what I mean.) But I realy feel it's no different than saying "Anyone with one of the old style flaps should be actively looking for a replacement set." Baloney!
The difference in handling is why it takes a pilot to land this series airplane instead of an autoland system. If a pilot has not learned the finesse of the excersize he should either practice some more, seek some instruction from someone who has mastered it, or just avoid wheel landings entirely.
Otherwise ...."Anyone with one of the old style conventional gears should be actively looking for a replacement set of tri-cycles"... because that's all that it amounts to, in my not-so-humble opinion.
.
Doug
-
n3833v
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 6:02 pm
I agree. I'm not the best, but I was practicing last night about Richard's comments and it was working. OH, gettin better.
John
John
John Hess
Past President 2018-2021
President 2016-2018, TIC170A
Vice President 2014-2016, TIC170A
Director 2005-2014, TIC170A
N3833V Flying for Fun
'67 XLH 900 Harley Sportster
EAA Chapter 390 Pres since 2006
K3KNT
Past President 2018-2021
President 2016-2018, TIC170A
Vice President 2014-2016, TIC170A
Director 2005-2014, TIC170A
N3833V Flying for Fun
'67 XLH 900 Harley Sportster
EAA Chapter 390 Pres since 2006
K3KNT
-
hilltop170
- Posts: 3485
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm
I agree with both BluElder and George on certain issues. When I was learning wheel landings in the 170 it seemed the slightest provocation would cause the plane to bounce because of the springy gear. Too much forward pressure at touchdown would just spraddle the gear legs out and then they would rebound and throw you back up in the air. Touch down a little too hard and the same thing would happen. It was a fine balance between too much and not enough.
I did not know enough about aircraft modifications then to even ask if stiffer gear was an option. I had springy gear and I knew if I was going to ever fly the plane well it was going to be with the springy gear. Eventually I did learn how to fly with them and not bounce. That was the hardest thing to overcome in learning to fly the 170. You can't horse the plane around with the light gear, you have to finesse it. It took me around 50 hours to finally figure out how to make consistent wheel landings. But once I did, it gave me the greatest sense of satisfaction knowing I had done it.
I sold the plane in 1984. In the following years I learned a little about aircraft mods. When I bought the plane back in 2006, stiffer gear was one of the first things I wanted to change. Besides the fact that the original gear had been on the plane for 55 years and had never been inspected off of the plane that I knew of, I wanted stiffer gear with stronger axles. I just happened to have a set of early C-180 gear I had removed from my 180 when I put it on 185 gear. The 180 gear was a little springy on the 180 with the aux fuel tanks and gross weight increase, but perfect for the 170. I have gotten used to stiffer gear and prefer it to the lighter versions no matter which plane I fly. It just feels better to me now.
I'm not recommending anyone change out their gear one way or the other. C-195s started out with stiff heavy gear then Cessna changed to light gear later in the production run. Go figure. It's personal preference as far as I'm concerned. I fully believe going thru the process of learning with the lighter gear did make me a better pilot in the long run.
I guess if I was to give any advice to new 170 pilots it would be if you have light gear on your plane, leave it there and learn to fly with it. You'll be glad you did. If it hasn't been off the plane and inspected in the last 10 years or so, get that done so you know it's safe. Then if you get a chance to fly the stiffer gear some day, you can decide which one is right for you.
I did not know enough about aircraft modifications then to even ask if stiffer gear was an option. I had springy gear and I knew if I was going to ever fly the plane well it was going to be with the springy gear. Eventually I did learn how to fly with them and not bounce. That was the hardest thing to overcome in learning to fly the 170. You can't horse the plane around with the light gear, you have to finesse it. It took me around 50 hours to finally figure out how to make consistent wheel landings. But once I did, it gave me the greatest sense of satisfaction knowing I had done it.
I sold the plane in 1984. In the following years I learned a little about aircraft mods. When I bought the plane back in 2006, stiffer gear was one of the first things I wanted to change. Besides the fact that the original gear had been on the plane for 55 years and had never been inspected off of the plane that I knew of, I wanted stiffer gear with stronger axles. I just happened to have a set of early C-180 gear I had removed from my 180 when I put it on 185 gear. The 180 gear was a little springy on the 180 with the aux fuel tanks and gross weight increase, but perfect for the 170. I have gotten used to stiffer gear and prefer it to the lighter versions no matter which plane I fly. It just feels better to me now.
I'm not recommending anyone change out their gear one way or the other. C-195s started out with stiff heavy gear then Cessna changed to light gear later in the production run. Go figure. It's personal preference as far as I'm concerned. I fully believe going thru the process of learning with the lighter gear did make me a better pilot in the long run.
I guess if I was to give any advice to new 170 pilots it would be if you have light gear on your plane, leave it there and learn to fly with it. You'll be glad you did. If it hasn't been off the plane and inspected in the last 10 years or so, get that done so you know it's safe. Then if you get a chance to fly the stiffer gear some day, you can decide which one is right for you.
Last edited by hilltop170 on Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:11 am, edited 4 times in total.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
2023 Best Original 170A at Sault Ste. Marie
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
2023 Best Original 170A at Sault Ste. Marie
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
-
blueldr
- Posts: 4442
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am
Kind of makes you wonder why Cessna didn't just continue on with the old gear, doesn't it. What in the world ever posessed Cessna to make that change? Strangely enough, you hardly ever hear of anyone busting their ass to find a set of the old soggy gears to replace their "Lady Legs"type.
Then, of course, there are the "originality" purists who wound die rather than install a set of fiberglas wheel fairings, but have no qualms about various radios and other electronics, or inertia reel shoulder harnesses.
Don't misunderstand me, I personally think radios and inertia reel shoulder harnesses are great. So are fiberglas wheel fairings. My airplane has many items to negate "originality', but they were installed because they were what I wanted in a "Flyer" for my own satisfaftion and enjoyment. The stiffer landing gear legs were one of those items.
As a matter of fact, the C170 is itself an anacronism that was a dieing airplane as far as sales were concerned. Its biggest production year was 1952, and sales fell off after that. Then those goofy guys started converting some of them to nose wheels and people liked them.
Fortunately for Cessna, some genious there said, "What the hell! If they want a nose wheel on the airplane, we'll build 'em that way".
They built something over 35,000 of them, and they're still going strong!
If they had tried to keep it as a conventional geared airplane, where do you suppose cessna would be today?
Nobody builds any working tail wheel airplanes anymore. About the only reason bush operators need them is when they have to operate on skiis.
Nose wheels really don't do well on skiis in relatively confined space such as runways. Turning is usually a problem since there is no brakeing available.
Attrition is slowly thinning the tail wheel ranks and about the only source of replacements is the conversion of old flat back, square tail C-182s.
Take good care of your airplanes, boys!
Then, of course, there are the "originality" purists who wound die rather than install a set of fiberglas wheel fairings, but have no qualms about various radios and other electronics, or inertia reel shoulder harnesses.
Don't misunderstand me, I personally think radios and inertia reel shoulder harnesses are great. So are fiberglas wheel fairings. My airplane has many items to negate "originality', but they were installed because they were what I wanted in a "Flyer" for my own satisfaftion and enjoyment. The stiffer landing gear legs were one of those items.
As a matter of fact, the C170 is itself an anacronism that was a dieing airplane as far as sales were concerned. Its biggest production year was 1952, and sales fell off after that. Then those goofy guys started converting some of them to nose wheels and people liked them.
Fortunately for Cessna, some genious there said, "What the hell! If they want a nose wheel on the airplane, we'll build 'em that way".
They built something over 35,000 of them, and they're still going strong!
If they had tried to keep it as a conventional geared airplane, where do you suppose cessna would be today?
Nobody builds any working tail wheel airplanes anymore. About the only reason bush operators need them is when they have to operate on skiis.
Nose wheels really don't do well on skiis in relatively confined space such as runways. Turning is usually a problem since there is no brakeing available.
Attrition is slowly thinning the tail wheel ranks and about the only source of replacements is the conversion of old flat back, square tail C-182s.
Take good care of your airplanes, boys!
BL
-
dacker
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:05 am
My "49 has the original gear legs... I don't have a problem with them but then again I don't know the difference. I have found that my gear are very forgiving (besides wouldn't stiffer gear be more springy or at least give less when you touch down?) i don't doubt that they offer some sort of improvement, just not sure that I understand what it is they improve.
The problem I have with wheelies is more related to the lack of dihedral (my opinion) and therefore the lack of stability when trying to finesse it onto the runway during crosswind conditions (it never seems to fail to be gusty in those conditions). Different gear won't make a difference. I could fly it on at a high rate of speed but why? Actually 70 mph seems a little fast to me.
I will say that I have found that if I approach at about 60-65 and get on the brakes after touch down when doing a wheelie I can stop in about the same amount of runway that I would if I approach at 50-55 mph for a three point (full stall), and there is a lot more control on the roll out. But like I said, in gusty conditions it is more difficult to roll it on.
Like a lot of us I get my jollies on seeing how short I can land and take off. To me at least, adding airspeed to your approach may make for a more stable airplane but it will also increase your chances of landing excessively long.
My rule on a botched wheelie is to simply assume a three point attitude, if I bounced too high, then I add a touch of power and float back down... not always pretty but it has always been a safe recovery for me. I prefer to not have to cob on the power and fight flaps and trim while trying to horse an underpowered airplane back into a flying mood when I have been trying to convince it to stop flying.
David
The problem I have with wheelies is more related to the lack of dihedral (my opinion) and therefore the lack of stability when trying to finesse it onto the runway during crosswind conditions (it never seems to fail to be gusty in those conditions). Different gear won't make a difference. I could fly it on at a high rate of speed but why? Actually 70 mph seems a little fast to me.
I will say that I have found that if I approach at about 60-65 and get on the brakes after touch down when doing a wheelie I can stop in about the same amount of runway that I would if I approach at 50-55 mph for a three point (full stall), and there is a lot more control on the roll out. But like I said, in gusty conditions it is more difficult to roll it on.
Like a lot of us I get my jollies on seeing how short I can land and take off. To me at least, adding airspeed to your approach may make for a more stable airplane but it will also increase your chances of landing excessively long.
My rule on a botched wheelie is to simply assume a three point attitude, if I bounced too high, then I add a touch of power and float back down... not always pretty but it has always been a safe recovery for me. I prefer to not have to cob on the power and fight flaps and trim while trying to horse an underpowered airplane back into a flying mood when I have been trying to convince it to stop flying.
David
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.