170 gear upgrade

[Agpilot27]

I am recovering wings on my 170 and thinking about upgrading to 180 gear as mine are original. Any experience or recommendations as to where to start?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

You will have to explain why you think installing 180 gear would be an upgrade?

Because you think the slightly newer, yet old 180 gear you find is somehow structurally better than your 170 gear?

Because you are going to fly your 170 on the edge of the envelope as a bush pilot and want to have every advantage the taller 180 gear will provide for not only prop clearance, but higher angle of attack in a 3 pt, allowing the slowest, earliest departure from mother earth?

Because you want the above no matter the shock to the airframe the stiffer 180 gear provides.

From my questions, you could correctly conclude that I don't think 180 gear is necessarily an upgrade and you would be right.

Both of my 170s have had the early gear design. My current 170, a '49, only slightly newer than your '48, has the same early gear as yours likely has. The one with the hole drilled through for the brake line clip. I don't consider them less safe than any other gear, 170 or 180, that I could install.

Now if I wanted to fly my 170A to the edge of the bush pilot envelope, I'd want 180 gear. But then I'd also want a B model for the semi-Fowler flaps to install those 180 gear on, so I could more easily land in places I could never depart from.

[N2625U]

so I could more easily land in places I could never depart from.

[c170b53]

“ land in places I could never depart from”
I think Jughead has already demonstrated that feat.....at least to this amateur.

[ghostflyer]

The landing gear with the hole drilled for the brake has a issue of cracking . Why I am saying this when I was doing my Sid’s inspection some where there was a inspection that that area should be crack detection done with dye penetrate or magnetic particle .however as it didn’t apply to me ,I didn’t take that much notice . I “think” the time period was every 500 cycles or 5 years . I know we were required to change ALL bolts relating to the undercarriage. However on further reflection was this a FAA or a CASA direction which would change other countries requirements.
However while not relevant I have seen a number of Cessna 180 [same gear and looking with one eye closed ] the gear spring at the top where the main retention bolt goes through crack across totally. These aircraft were military aircraft and had been abused in there short life.

[GAHorn]

I agree with Bruce. Unless you are operating in rough-country needing more prop-to-ground clearance and/or to support a heavier engine conversion... I’d personally consider adding another 11 lbs of dead weight and stiff gear a Down-grade.

[counsellj]

“ land in places I could never depart from”
I think Jughead has already demonstrated that feat.....at least to this amateur.

Jim, I'm curious what made you made the above statement?

Jughead

[c170b53]

Seen you tubes, watched the stol comp at Oshkosh, you guys simply have more skill and guts than I have. I’m also curious about the show. Have you have lightened your airframe and as for the STOL competition whether there’s a standard quantity of fuel carried to make a level playing field. If so what’s the fuel load each aircraft has to carry.

[counsellj]

Seen you tubes, watched the stol comp at Oshkosh, you guys simply have more skill and guts than I have. I’m also curious about the show. Have you have lightened your airframe and as for the STOL competition whether there’s a standard quantity of fuel carried to make a level playing field. If so what’s the fuel load each aircraft has to carry.

Jim

Luckily I have never landed somewhere I couldn't take off from again. On the videos when I make what appears to be tight takeoffs, ie just barely getting airborne or using a little water, I actually have some safety buffer built in. I will delay rotation for dramatic effect or know that if roll to the waters edge, it is shallow and firm and safe to use. The biggest part of a lot of what we do "on the edge", is knowing where the edge is and knowing that if we aren't 100% sure we can safely do it, then we don't. I have looked at difficult strips sometimes for years before I actually attempted them. There are places that I go into regularly, but it doesn't mean I will go into them everytime.

As far as the STOL competition goes. Yes, guys get pretty radical lightening up their planes. Easy stuff, pull interiors, seats etc. Hard stuff, titatnium bolts, plastic washers, etc. We all are running MINIMUM fuel. I calculate a typical 3 run contest takes approx .8-1.2 gals of fuel. So starting a contest with 4-6 gals is normal for a lot of guys. But there is no STANDARD.

Now the Talkeetna Alaska STOL demo, reguires the airplane to be at MAX GROSS Weight for the competition.

Jughead

[GAHorn]

Seen you tubes, watched the stol comp at Oshkosh, you guys simply have more skill and guts than I have. I’m also curious about the show. Have you have lightened your airframe and as for the STOL competition whether there’s a standard quantity of fuel carried to make a level playing field. If so what’s the fuel load each aircraft has to carry.

Jim

Luckily I have never landed somewhere I couldn't take off from again. On the videos when I make what appears to be tight takeoffs, ie just barely getting airborne or using a little water, I actually have some safety buffer built in. I will delay rotation for dramatic effect or know that if roll to the waters edge, it is shallow and firm and safe to use. The biggest part of a lot of what we do "on the edge", is knowing where the edge is and knowing that if we aren't 100% sure we can safely do it, then we don't. I have looked at difficult dstrips sometimes for years before I actually attempted them. There are places that I go into regularly, but it doesn't mean I will go into them everytime.

As far as the STOL competition goes. Yes, guys get pretty radical lightening up their planes. Easy stuff, pull interiors, seats etc. Hard stuff, titatnium bolts, plastic washers, etc. We all are running MINIMUM fuel. I calculate a typical 3 run contest takes approx .8-1.2 gals of fuel. So starting a contest with 4-6 gals is normal for a lot of guys. But there is no STANDARD.

Now the Talkeetna Alaska STOL demo, reguires the airplane to be at MAX GROSS Weight for the competition.

Jughead

I’ve often thought that the videos might have unfortunate consequences if the full preparatory actions were not known to someone with less experience and skill who might attempt the same. Thanks for posting that.

[alanbaker]

Bruce- since you have put a lot of thought into this subject what would you recommend he do as an upgrade?

I am also in the same boat as the OP. My '48 gear go every which way but down, her nickname is bow legged Betty. One leg has a hole, the other has a dimple. I don't have a lot of faith in the integrity of the gear. The 180 gear seem like an easy and widly available stronger alternative.

What do you suggest we do? I know nothing, I just want this aircraft to have a long life and not be destroyed by a failed gear leg.

[hilltop170]

180 gear on a 170 will work just fine and are not too stiff. If you want 180 gear, by all means install them. The early year model 180 gear are the best for the 170. They are thinner and not so stiff. Other threads explain the differences.

I think the 170 is easier to land with 180 gear. Less tendency to "crow hop", but learning how to land smoothly is the most important thing, no matter what gear you have. Just spend the time and figure it out.

There is nothing wrong with original gear, I just happen to prefer stiffer gear. Any of the gear will break given the right mixture of stress risers, corrosion, and overload conditions.

I have had 180 gear on my 170A since 2006 and would not go back to the flimsy original gear.

You apparently have two different versions of original gear and that would make me want to get matching gear if I was in your shoes, either original 170 gear or 180 gear, whatever you prefer.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Alan, what you fear is because you see your gear "go every which way but down, her nickname is bow legged Betty" that the gear is inferior to any other gear available, you could install. This is not necessarily the case. All the early gear are bow legged. They had this trait from the factory. Being bow legged is not a sign of age or weakness of the gear. They all can break due to stress risers which lead to cracks. Rust and pitting are the start of bad things. Things strapped to the gear such as steps help cause unseen rust and pitting.

Which style gear is better is like asking what oil or model car is better. The right answer is all too often in the mind of the beholder and for no reason you might be able to agree with. The major reason heard for wanting stiffer gear such as "lady legs" or 180 gear is because it is considered easier to make a landing without bouncing. It very well might be. But I can assure you the skill of the pilot is much more critical in that regard. 99% of the 170 landing I've made have been on the early style gear. I've made many good landings and many bad landings. I've never come away from a bad landing blaming it on the early gear. I must admit, when I grease one on I do usually take a moment to think, who in the heck needs stiffer gear.

While I appreciate modified aircraft, I tend to get a bit more excited at original stuff. Here is how I rate gear when I look at a 170. Does the 170 have the correct gear for the serial number? This gets my highest mark. If I was forced to change out early gear for "lady Legs" or 180 gear, I'd go with "Lady Legs" only because at least they were designed for the 170 model. This does not mean i wouldn't own a 170 with 180 gear if that is how I bought it.

If I were you Alan, I'd keep my eye open for a reasonably priced matching gear to one of those you already have. To be honest, having mismatched gear would bug me every time I thought of it though the only difference is a through hole in the one you have. I also can't run mismatched tires or anything not symmetrical.

All gear have the possibility of breaking. The only way you might mitigate that is to have them cleaned and inspected properly. Very few people have the skill and knowledge to do this correctly. Here are two and perhaps the only two as they are the only people we ever hear about offering this service.

The landing Gear Works
Tom Anderson
https://tlgw.aero/

North Sound Aviation
Jim Hayton
360-661-3302
(Info from 2012)

[GAHorn]

I agree with Bruce entirely. While the 180 gear is thought by many to be an improvement, it’s usually because it’s so stiff having been designed for a heavier airplane, therefore less “springy” and allows sloppy piloting to more easily land without a bounce (same reason Cessna developed the Lady Legs... so that “if you can drive you can fly”.)
The 180 gear is also unnecessarily heavy for a 170. Also there are several versions of 180/185 gear so if you are not careful buying salvaged 180 gear you may again end up with a mis-match. Those differences are posted elsewhere in these Forums.
(And the Assoc’n has an early set of gear legs I’d like to get out of my hangar.)

One more thing, just to appear picky: “Bow legged” is how the later “Lady Legs” appear. “Knock-kneed” is how the early gear appears.

They are both good, just with different spring-rates.

The following link in the MX Library will describe the basic differences:
http://cessna170.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6367

[swixtt]

hopefully this thread will be a lot more useful to AGpilot if there is post from a person that has them. perhaps they will eventually see this thread.