Zreyn wrote:...I don't experance any of the negative effects that I read about stock gear.I don't have an improved runway,just the pasture which has never been graded,just mown two or three times a year depending on how much rain we get.It seems to me that the gear is doing exactly what it should do.I also inflate the tires only to the point of filling out the shape of the tires which is between 15 & 20 PSI.Most all my landings are on grass so I'm looking at a new set of tires only because they are 15 yrs old.I know the "stol" makes the comparison apples to cum kwats but just thought I would chime in. I think that most of the negative things people think is because of soft gear is really due to wheel alignment.At least I know mine changed dramaticly when I realigned the wheels.
I don't know....that sounds drastically sensible/normal to me.
In my opinion...There is a lot of air that passes the lips regarding the "differences" that are told between these airplanes.... most of it simply the result of a lack of standardization. And I don't mean airframe standardization, I mean pilot technique standardization.
I've flown all three models 170, with all three standard gears, and I've flown two engine conversions, one with 180 gear. I do not think any of them are "problems" that need solutions other than can be addressed by training and practice of the pilots.
The 170 didn't have quite the roll-control of the metal wings.... no big deal, ordinarily. Slightly less cross-wind capability perhaps, but if so....then it'd be a day I wouldn't want to be out flying anyways.
The 170A didn't have as much flap as the later model .... but it doesn't really need more flap anyway. What it's got works just fine 98% of the time, and meanwhile it doesn't have any surprises for those who like to slip to a landing.
The 170B is only a slightly improved airplane over the A, but not so much as to be a detriment to the earlier airplanes. Slightly more stable in light chop, and slightly more willing to get off and on short strips, but nothing dramatic or worth more than a few dollars at purchase. Condition of the individual airframes is FAR more important than the flap/dihedral/gear differences.
Landing gear is a complicating factor, mostly in the minds of those who haven't yet experienced the airplane. To be blunt, a competent pilot will have absolutely no difficulty in handling ANY of the stock landing gears. If you find that you are fighting the early gear, then you simply need to admit to yourself that you need some training and practice. There's no reason in my opinion to spend a dime on changing the landing gear for a later gear, unless you had wiped the gear out in an accident and were looking for used parts to put it back together. Even then, it might be considered a waste of money if the later gear cost more than exact replacements.
As for swapping to a 180/185 gear... In many cases I think I've seen that done purely as a "fad" because of the airplanes that are on the market that advertise the 180/185 gear as if it were some kind of super-duper improvement of the original airplane. It's not. It's not an improvement at all in my opinion, unless the airplane is being used for specialized purposes such as bush-flying on unimproved strips that need every possible inch of prop-to-ground clearance and/or in conjunction with a heavier engine conversion. And even then, it's not required. To swap an early gear for a 180/185 gear for any other purpose is a back-yard/eastside mod, sort of like a "low-rider" job done to a '57 Chevy or a jack-up done to a '51 Ford pickup. Yecchk!
Those who can't land might like it. (It'd be like swapping the suspension out on a Buick for one that came off a
truck.) Then when it came time to sell it, it'd have to be marketed like it was some kind of "improvement". (How many of you are willing to buy a chopped/lowered '57 Chevy or '67 Chevelle over one that is "stock"?)
If you are having some difficulty in the finer points of T.O.'s and Landings, then a better expenditure of money would be on a Cessna taildragger qualified CFI and some fuel. Don't just bounce around the pattern making the same old mistakes as before because all that will do is re-inforce bad techniques until they become ingrained. Find a tailwheel qualified instructor who has real experience in Cessna taildraggers and get some other opinions on how you can improve yourself. (As opposed to how you can alter the airplane in ways that only mask poor pilot technique.)
OK, I'll get off that...
As for the minor differences in tire circumferences etc. and how that affects things.... it's almost unimportant on the standard sizes listed in the TCDS. Tire pressures can influence things more. (TP should be 24 psi on standard tires.)
Zreyn is correct in the case of "full stall" landings. If truly "full" stall...the tailwheel will invariably touch first. This is true regardless of STOL kits or other mods. If a true 3-point is made, the airplane was still flying when it touched. This makes no difference in tires, gear, or other mods. That's why it's cumquat silly to start discussing landing techniques based upon mod differences of tires, etc. as if those made any real difference at the point of touchdown or required handling-differences.
(This reminds me of the discussion that ensued a couple years ago regarding dip-sticking the fuel-tanks as related to tire sizes. Jeesh!)
. I wonder how this thing was not balled up,maybe that is why it only has 2100 tt on it. Wheel landings ok, three points ok. I like wheel landings. 
May there always be and Angel flying with you.
