E Z Peaces wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in
news:0390ffd1-a85e-4ae3-8971-
:

On Jun 26, 3:00 pm, E Z Peaces wrote:

The man said the problem was that he had failed to keep the stick
back after touchdown. Does his recollection make sense?
Nope


Does actually. Little tailfraggers, and big ones, come to think of
it, bounce along of you dont get the stick back after three
pointing. the mains will thrust it back up into the air a bit and
then the nose comes back down again repeating the cycle.



Bertie

Doesn't a three-point landing occur at stall speed?


Not always.


Isn't the plane
going too slowly to lift off again? Besides, if the tail is that
low, touching down won't increase the angle of attack, will it?

If the tail is that low, you have th estick all the way back.

The man said it was after touchdown that he'd quit holding the stick
back.



Yes, I know. I read your post.



You say the mains will thrust it back up into the air and the cycle
will repeat. In a three-point landing, it seems it would take
springs to make a plane rise. Aren't shock absorbers supposed to
prevent that?


Shock absorbers are for cars and they'r emade to dampen cycles such
as that.




Bertie

I've read about oleo aircraft struts at least as early as the 1920s.

Theyre not dampers, they're oleos and provide no damping. Shock
absorbers are something different and have a different function, though
tey're misnamed in any case, since its the springs that absorb and the
shicks, as they;'re called, prevent the energy stored in the spring from
rebounding the wheel off the road. Airplanes don't have shock absorbers.