The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I have about five hours in my C170. I have done both wheel and three-point landings. I have landed on the big 5000x100 runway a small dirt strip. I think I like the wheel landings better than the three-point landing. I have about 25-30 landings. The landings on the small dirt strip were a lot more fun.

I was wondering which, wheel or three-point landings, were better???? On the small strip I was able to get stopped as short with the 170 as I did with the 150, with a wheel landing. The three-point landings seem really screwed up to me. If you have any thoughts about either type of landing please let me know.

Thanks
Wayne

Personally I think it's whatever works best for you. My preference is 3 point. I can get a shorter landing with them. I had a lot easier time doing wheel landings with my C140. Do a search and you'll see some pretty good discussion on both type landings.

Walt is right it is more up to what works best for you in a given situation. I'll bet if you got real comfortable with the 3 point landings you could do them shorter than a wheel landing.

I would prefer to wheel land because wheel landings are cool. But I can 3 point land much much better and so that is what I do when the going gets tuff.

Wayne, ... for a look at what Bruce calls "tough" .... click on a view of him landing at Petit Jean last year... (he makes it look easy, heh?)

http://home.comcast.net/~bfenster/ShortLandingChamp.wmv

Find what works best for you. However, I would recommend proficiency at both since you may find yourself in a situation where one might be preferable over the other. For an excellent book, read "The Compleat Taildragger Pilot" by the late Harvey S. Plourde (a former 170 owner).

"What works best for you" will have an awful lot to do with loading and CG. A little extra weight in front with the Lycoming and flying it light on baggage with two in front and full fuel in the wings it's a real challenge for me to three point it. If I'm alone and light on fuel the three point landing is really nice but I rarely fly that way. Too bad too because at sea level the takeoff and climb is really awesome alone and light .

One of the reasons I want the dual puck brakes is that when I'm heavy and wheel land it I'm running out of brake effectiveness with the single pucks. If I can slow it faster I can transition faster which really helps sometimes in a crosswind for example.

Generally I prefer to wheel land on pavement and three point on grass. I swap around some just to stay proficient (?) at both. As a side note, I did have 8:00 tires. At last annual I changed to smaller tires because I was thinking about installing wheel pants. I like the way the 8:00's land much more so I am planning to change back to the 8:00's.

Harold

Harold Holiman wrote:I like the way the 8:00's land much more so I am planning to change back to the 8:00's.
Harold

Amen - I much prefer the 800's to the 600's. As far as landings, I alternate between the two with a slight lean towards wheel landings on pavement.

I have read "The Complete Taildragger Pilot", twice. My instructor gave it to me. I guess what frustrates me the most, is how short and how comfortable I was landing the 150. Now I’m flying the 170 and feel like an idiot. I can land it safely, well so far but it just feels so weird.

What speeds are you guys approaching and then touching down at? I think I am flying my approaches too fast, and then of course touching down too fast. My plane does have the 800 tires. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks again
Wayne

I alternate between wheel landing and 3 point. My preference most of the time is wheel landings. With no crosswind I like to come at 80 mph on downwind, 70 on base and 60 to 65 mph as I cross the threshold for both 3 point and wheel landings. If it's gusty or there is a crosswind I'll add some speed accordingly. If you do a search for "wheel and landings" you will find plenty of opinions on how to land a 170. Someone once said that 3 point landings are easier to learn and harder to make look good - and wheel landings are harder to learn and easier to make look good. I found that to be very true.

The best advice anyone ever gave me on spring gear wheel landings was to throw in just a little slip just before touchdown so you land on one wheel slightly ahead of the other. That seems to cut the bounce factor about in half. A touch of power just before touchdown helps to reduce the sink rate.

pif_sonic wrote:I have read "The Complete Taildragger Pilot", twice. My instructor gave it to me. I guess what frustrates me the most, is how short and how comfortable I was landing the 150. Now I’m flying the 170 and feel like an idiot. I can land it safely, well so far but it just feels so weird.

Wayne, don't let it get you down. I got my license in a 150 in 1978. As a guess, I'd say that I have a total of a couple of hundred hours in them, vs. about 1500 in my 170. I still think I can land a 150 more consistently than I can land a 170, or a 172 for that matter. I don't know if it's because I learned in a 150, or because it's just that easy to fly. I lean toward the latter.

A good landing in a 150 is expected. A good landing in a 170 is something to be proud of because it doesn't happen (for me) every time. There are plenty of times where '98C makes me feel like an idiot too. I love her anyway.

pif_sonic wrote:What speeds are you guys approaching and then touching down at? I think I am flying my approaches too fast, and then of course touching down too fast. My plane does have the 800 tires. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks again
Wayne

Approaching too fast is probably one of the most common problems in landing a 170. I know it is for me. Airspeed calibrations vary greatly airplane to airplane, so go out and sneak up on stall speed in slow flight in approach configuration, then try an approach at 1.3 times that number. If I remember correctly, the published stall speed is around 48-49 mph, putting a good approach speed around 62-63 mph. If the wind is steady, it will still be in the air at 55, but roll control is sluggish, and there's not much margin, but by the time the tail is down in a 3-point attitude, the airplane will be DONE flying. If you come down final at 70-75 like I find myself doing all too often, you'll have to hold the 3-point attitude while the speed bleeds off (not something I do well), and will likely get a little "skip" when it does touch down. My 3-pointers do seem to be more consistent when there is someone in the back seat. Solo, I'm right up near the forward CG limit, and it seems to be harder to hold a steady 3-point attitude.

I think too much speed on approach is why my wheel landings are more consistent than my 3-pointers. You can fly the airplane onto the ground at almost any speed, but you have to let the tail come down on it's own as the airplane slows, or you'll find your self airborne again.

It's been said many time before, but the key is practice, practice, practice. Hope this helps.

Miles

Wayne, you'd be well advised to get competent at both wheelers & three-pointers. I wheel land a lot-- but NOT on soft surfaces. That's kinda asking for trouble IMHO. I generally 3-point on non-pavement, and split between 3 pointers & wheelers on pavement, and usually wheel land in crosswinds.
Approach speed: I would go out with the airplane loaded up with passengers & fuel the way you usually fly it, and do some power-off approach-type stalls. Don't even bother with power-on stalls, they don't have much to do with anything. When you get an idea of where it lets go in your normal configuration (flaps, weight, & CG), then you have something to base your approach speed on. I'd use 1.3 times the stall speed (usually around 60-65) for starters, & for "normal" landings. You can work your way down to 1.2 or even 1.1 for short/soft field work. You may find that control effectiveness (mushy ailerons) is more of a limiting factor than stall speed. Just take it easy, don't try to become the STOL king overnight.
Once you determine your stall X 1.3 "reference" approach speed, you might want to take some white-out or white tape or something similar & put a hashmark on your airspeed indicator. That way when you glance down & scan the panel while flyng the pattern, you don't have to think about numbers- just line the arrow up close to that hashmark.
I would invest a whole lot of money in fuel & get real familiar with the airplane before spending any money for mods like VG's or STOL kits. The limiting factor in STOL op's is usually skill, not equipment.

Eric

N2865C wrote:Someone once said that 3 point landings are easier to learn and harder to make look good - and wheel landings are harder to learn and easier to make look good. I found that to be very true.

That is the best way I've ever seen that put! My experience exactly.

N2865C wrote:The best advice anyone ever gave me on spring gear wheel landings was to throw in just a little slip just before touchdown so you land on one wheel slightly ahead of the other. That seems to cut the bounce factor about in half. A touch of power just before touchdown helps to reduce the sink rate.

Another trick I was taught was that when you are learning wheel landings, roll in about a quarter to half turn of nose-down trim on short final. This helps with the counter-intuitive necessity to hold the nose down on touchdown. After you get an idea of what the look and feel are for the wheel landing touchdown, you no longer need to fool yourself with the trim.

Miles

dave has the c/g down right by me, and miles the tricks, with the flurry of tail cone parts needed the trick i guess is to stay away from the one point landings
brad

I would not recommend loading it up with passengers and baggage and going practicing landings. That's just subjecting them to landings you yourself are uncomfortable with, and it places undue additonal stress on you while you practice. If you want the airplane heavy, do it with sandbags/ballast/fuel.

If you have difficulty making a 3-point landing when lightly loaded, try using one notch less flaps. (Stalls more readily.) Works for me.