The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I got my tailwheel endorsement in a Citabria and am fairly comfortable in it but am now struggling with 3-point landings in the 170B with a Horton STOL kit. Way too many arrivals. I am going to get some more dual but would be interested in any thoughts.

What do you mean by 'way too many arrivals'?

*Low time pilot opinion*
I'm not a fan of three point landings.
I feel I have much more control with a wheel landing and can stop just as short...if not shorter.

I think what he means by way to many arrivals is he is bouncing. In other words he is getting his 3 landings to stay current with one departure.

David just curious, do you have the Horton kit?

How do you bounce a three point landing? With the tail on the ground, the angle of attack can't increase on touch down to make the plane fly up in the air again (which is what a bounce is)

No, I don't have a STOL kit on my plane. Just a Plane Jane 170B.

cheers,
-David

With respect to "arrivals," exactly. I first came across this use in Ernest K. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter," and have heard it many times since, no doubt describing my landings.

bagarre wrote:How do you bounce a three point landing? With the tail on the ground, the angle of attack can't increase on touch down to make the plane fly up in the air again (which is what a bounce is)

No, I don't have a STOL kit on my plane. Just a Plane Jane 170B.

cheers,
-David

Fair question. I thought maybe it was a result of the tailwheel hitting first.

Hmm, the tailwheel hitting first would actually decrease the angle of attack as the mains came down...causing the plane to stop flying more.

I think you might be landing tail low...not actually three points...and letting the tail drop. This will increase AA and cause the plane to fly up into the air again (What most people call a bounced landing).

You might try more flare and hold the plane off the ground longer.

OR, leave the tail up and apply some forward pressure on the stick when the mains touch down (wheel landing).

N3548C wrote:I got my tailwheel endorsement in a Citabria and am fairly comfortable in it but am now struggling with 3-point landings in the 170B with a Horton STOL kit. Way too many arrivals. I am going to get some more dual but would be interested in any thoughts.

I learned to fly on a Citabria as well (7ECA), great airplane. There are a bunch of contributors that result in bouncing....flap setting, weight - C of G, trim setting, speed, not holding the wheel fully back, tire and gear type.... To many variables to comment. Getting some good tailwheel instruction with someone familiar with 170's is the best option.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the only thing that causes an airplane to 'bounce' on landing is a change in the Angle of Attack. Wheels touch, tail drops, wing flys, plane goes up, plane slows down, plane lowers, wheels touch.....

Unless you drop it in from 10 feet, its not a bounce.

It has nothing to do with your landing gear or your speed, flaps nor CG. It has to do with the wing's AA.

You can wheel land a 170 at 100MPH, any flaps, any gear with the CG anywhere in the legal range and it wont bounce unless you let the tail drop and change the AA. If done correctly, the only thing that changes is your roll out distance. Change the AA and your "Bounce" will be back to pattern altitude.

Planes don't bounce. They fly.

We're not talking about a stock 170, and it makes a big difference. With the Horton STOL kit, my experience is that a 170 can be rolling out after a good 3-point landing, and a little gust of wind will put it in the air again. The STOL wing will generate good lift at higher angles of attack and lower airspeeds than a stock 170, by quite a bit. Are you landing with full flaps, as recommended by the Cessna owner's manual? With less than that, the airplane won't slow down fast enough on the runway, and it will want to keep flying. Land with full flaps, and as slowly as possible. The drag of 40-degree flaps should quickly get you out of the airspeed range where the airplane wants to go up again.

jrenwick wrote: With the Horton STOL kit, my experience is that a 170 can be rolling out after a good 3-point landing, and a little gust of wind will put it in the air again.

That's still not a bounce

bagarre wrote:

jrenwick wrote: With the Horton STOL kit, my experience is that a 170 can be rolling out after a good 3-point landing, and a little gust of wind will put it in the air again.

That's still not a bounce

You can bounce any aircraft on any landing. We have bounced landing (hard landing) procedures on the CRJ and similiar aircraft. The spring steel gear on the 120 thru 195 series is a rebound gear, (big spring) by nature it will bounce. Practice makes perfect and everyone of us has bounced a 170 during landing and will continue to do so. If you have never bounced your 170 on landing you Sir must be Chuck Yeager.

I have certainly landed in a way that has caused my airplane to go back up into the air in a very awkward way.
But it had nothing to do with the flexing of the landing gear. Every time I let the tail drop. It has to do with the AA of the wing.

There is simply no way you are going to fling an airplane back into the air to any appreciable height by flexing its gear upon landing.
If that were the case, FAA drop tests would make airplanes act like basket balls.

Also, how do you explain all the bounced landings in planes with NON flexible landing gear? They 'bounce' just as high as ours.

We certify the DHC-8 landing gear by performing drop tests at 10fps. That's the FAA TC CAA requirements. The landing gear oleo strut compresses and fully rebounds and will bounce the aircraft. The gear must also sustain no damage, the main gear leg will fail as designed at rates above 15 - 16fps. The issue he is having is performing a three point landing without bouncing. There is a bunch of factors. Wheel landing are different. But I have seen many bounced wheel landing in my day both with oleo strut and spring steel geared aircraft.