180 gear legs

[MontanaBird]

To all 170 drivers/superheroes,

I fly a '56 B, more or less original. I am considering modifying the gear legs this winter to the 180 type, also putting on 8.5's w/Cleveland double pucks, and seeing what happens.

What weight increase, and ground handling improvement/changes might I expect if I do this?

I must say after 1,000 hrs of taildragger time, and flying my bird in all wind conditions, sometimes it is really a handful; and when she starts a buckin' and a snortin', and sometimes crowhoppin, I wonder if its me, or it. Both are possible........

So, if its worth it, I will sure do it. Your thoughts appreciated.

MontanaBird

[GAHorn]

I am not a fan of the 180/185 gear conversion except in cases where rough, unimproved strips indicate a need for greater ground-to-prop clearance exists. (I do not like the stiffer gear and it's effect on the 170 gear-box, and I do not like the increased deck-angle of the conversion and it's effect upon aircraft performance. I also do not like the increased sprung-weight of the heavier gear and how that affects the gearbox while inflight.)
But if you are operating off rough strips, and rocky/bumpy ground... I can see that the virtues of such a mod might be worthwhile compared to it's liabilities. Same is true of the wheel/brake/tire conversion.
I think we know what you're gonna do....but you'd also save a bunch of money and trouble to simply rely upon Cessna's engineering data as to what is appropriate for your 170.

[jrenwick]

George, if the 180 gear puts the nose up higher than the stock gear (and I have no idea if it does or not), it would have some effect on the amount of useable fuel in the tanks. The part of the tank that's forward of the filler neck will be higher than stock, or looking at it another way, the filler neck will be below the top of the tank. That creates a bigger ullage (nice word!) when the fuel is up to the filler neck than the stock aircraft would have. Bigger tires also add to this effect, of course.

[N419A]

I have put a little research in to this particular mod. And, this is what I've determined.

The 180 legs I would use would be the early legs 0741001-1, 0741001-2 these are the ones that they call wheels aft (or they come straight down) I would not want any of the others (wheels forward) because this would increase tail weight (and that little tail wheel really plows a furrow though the rocks and takes a pretty good beating on rough strips. I know some people like the wheels forward so you can really get on the binders. As for the only difference between the early 180 legs and the later 170 legs (lady legs) is the 1.5 in. in length, I think they are the same thickness 11/16 in. and little wider at the lower end so you probably don't gain much in stiffness. Unless you went to the later ones that are 3/4 in. thick. (the xpmod web site has a good description of the differences in gear legs)

I'd put a set of early 180 gear legs on if a I had a set or got a good deal on some. Primarily for the prop clearance when on skis. I run 26in bushwheels in the summer, so the nose probably went up a couple inches from the 8.50's didn't notice any handling difference.

Have fun flying, Paul

[Romeo Tango]

Montana - check out the PPonk stiffener kits for the C170. They add substantial strength the landing gear frame/box, and were a most welcome addition on my original C170. I don't put too much sideloading on, but there have been times in the Mojave that crosswinds were putting me well into the test pilot category and I was most happy to have that extra insurance policy.

[Jr.CubBuilder]

I have the early 180 legs on mine. I have nothing bad to say about them, except I know they added some weight. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the weight but I guess that's a catch 22.