The International Cessna 170 Association

So I haven't flown much lately, in fact, I've only flown once since my solo back in <redacted to protect the guilty>. Life has, once again, found a way to get in the way.

My CFI is a good friend, and seems to enjoy flying with me. He owns a 1998 Maule MX7-180C that I started to fly when I was thinking I was going to be able to finish my ticket prior to moving to Illinois. I more or less hated the airplane at the time, but I think I was just bitter that I was 170-less. I guess Harold has been wanting to fly with me some more, and in order to incentivize me getting out and flying some, he's made me a deal I can't refuse. So, last night, we did some hood work and a cross country to KDLC to help fill some checkboxes, and to re familiarize myself with simulated instrument flight and tracking VORs and such. Part of the reason I think Harold wants me to fly his airplane is because his is much better equipped than anything else I'd have access to, even our 170, so navigation is a lot easier, and everything works in his airplane. The benefit for me is that it's an affordable, pretty new taildragger that is well-maintained. Harold gets to fly his airplane, and I get to fly him around in it. Win-win.

The 170 had some tailwheel work performed recently. The wheel, tube, and tire were changed because the wheel was damaged during a flat tire with a student, and the main spring was re-bent. The owner and the airport owner/IA opted to re-bend the spring rather than replace it, so we'll see how that holds up. The main CFI for the airplane and the IA went to lunch late last week to test out the tailwheel as the airplane had not flown since the work was performed. Ron (airport owner/IA) is a very close friend as well, and while we were looking for the bottom of a 12-pack of Miller Lite one evening (after flying was done, of course), he remarked that he didn't realize how fast the 170 was...about 120mph indicated at 3500 feet. He's been a very big advocate for me getting the 170 and has been a tremendous help answering my endless list of dumb questions about aircraft ownership.

Back to the story about the Maule. So Harold and I fire up and venture skyward yesterday evening. As indicated by the title, my thoughts on the Maule have changed a lot since I last flew it. I genuinely like the airplane now; it's got great control harmony, has great ground handling, and is a very stable airplane for hood work. It's no 170, but I genuinely enjoyed flying it yesterday and felt very connected. The one thing I couldn't help but notice while we were burning nearly 40% more fuel is that we were going nearly 10mph SLOWER than the 170. 110mph in cruise is about all we were doing. Granted, we were kind of loafing, but we were still burning about 12gph. The only thing I can think of that would cause this is the airplane being green.

I ain't no scientician or nothin', but we were burning more hydrocarbons and weren't pedaling very fast. I can't think that there is much difference in drag between the two airplanes, though the Maule is heavier. The Maule has a constant-speed propeller, the 170 doesn't. Neither airplane has wheelpants. One is red, the other is green. I hate to think of how slow we would have been flying in the green airplane if we were flying with equivalent power as the red one.

In the Maule's defense, it does have red upholstery, but that clearly doesn't help its cause.

Stay smart out there, guys. If your airplane is due for paint, make the right choice. If your late B model left the factory with green paint, alter or destroy the finish information data plate, or invest in some snake oil treatments, or an engine conversion. It just isn't worth being outrun by a 150 in the name of making a fashion statement.

Very crafty....I think that distant whump might have been George's head .

Sure it wasn't 110kts?

robw56 wrote:Sure it wasn't 110kts?

Oddly enough, this has MPH on the outside of the instrument and KT on the inside. 95KIAS both directions.

Ryan, I would URGE you to remove that "re-bent" tailwheel mainspring and throw it away or make a hunting knife out of it, and replace it with a NEW spring from Univair or Aircraft Spruce.
I have several reasons for making the suggestion, but the MAIN one is that these springs fail when they break at the point where they meet the lower, trailing edge of the spring above them (the so-called 4th spring). No amount of repairs will remove the stress acquired by the mainspring over the years of service, and when it fails it will allow the tailwheel (captured by it's steering springs) to beat your rudder to DEATH before you can stop it.

New main springs are cheap insurance.

(Also, it's unlikely your old spring was bent using any kind of "Acceptable Data" or "Approved" repair scheme. Additionally, ...exactly why was it re-bent? ...was it previously improperly bent? The correct shape will have two bends in it, to position the tailwheel with "positive" caster.....i.e., the top of the king-pin will be further aft than the lower, with the result that the turntable of the tailwheel will slant downward viewing from front to aft. It is a commonly mistaken belief the turntable should be level... NOT SO.)

gahorn wrote:Ryan, I would URGE you to remove that "re-bent" tailwheel mainspring and throw it away or make a hunting knife out of it, and replace it with a NEW spring from Univair or Aircraft Spruce.
I have several reasons for making the suggestion, but the MAIN one is that these springs fail when they break at the point where they meet the lower, trailing edge of the spring above them (the so-called 4th spring). No amount of repairs will remove the stress acquired by the mainspring over the years of service, and when it fails it will allow the tailwheel (captured by it's steering springs) to beat your rudder to DEATH before you can stop it.

New main springs are cheap insurance.

(Also, it's unlikely your old spring was bent using any kind of "Acceptable Data" or "Approved" repair scheme. Additionally, ...exactly why was it re-bent? ...was it previously improperly bent? The correct shape will have two bends in it, to position the tailwheel with "positive" caster.....i.e., the top of the king-pin will be further aft than the lower, with the result that the turntable of the tailwheel will slant downward viewing from front to aft. It is a commonly mistaken belief the turntable should be level... NOT SO.)

George,

I'd like to discuss with you, if I may. When do you generally have availability to take phone calls, and is the number in the 2013 directory the best contact number for you?

I'd have to agree with George here. I think every owner has to gauge when they're going to replace the main leaf. It's risk management and for the cost involved versus the downside, likely sooner is better than later.

Like George said "New main springs are cheap insurance". The damage a flailing tailwheel can do to the rudder far outweighs the cost of a new spring, not to mention the effect all that racket coming from the megaphone behind you will have on your shorts!

c170b53 wrote:I'd have to agree with George here. I think every owner has to gauge when they're going to replace the main leaf. It's risk management and for the cost involved versus the downside, likely sooner is better than later.

I don't disagree with George. I have little say-so about what happens to the airplane, as I do not currently own it. I wish they would have replaced it instead of re-bending it. They got the idea after they were complaining that the geometry appeared to be off and I told them that the main spring hadn't been touched since well before 1985, as well as the service schedule.

The airplane issued for training currently, so it would stand to reason that it would result in damage in short order. They killed a tailwheel in less than a week a couple months ago...

Ryan Smith wrote:

c170b53 wrote:I'd have to agree with George here. I think every owner has to gauge when they're going to replace the main leaf. It's risk management and for the cost involved versus the downside, likely sooner is better than later.

I don't disagree with George. I have little say-so about what happens to the airplane, as I do not currently own it. I wish they would have replaced it instead of re-bending it. They got the idea after they were complaining that the geometry appeared to be off and I told them that the main spring hadn't been touched since well before 1985, as well as the service schedule.

The airplane issued for training currently, so it would stand to reason that it would result in damage in short order. They killed a tailwheel in less than a week a couple months ago...

Ryan, Buy a spring for it and give it to them as a gift. It is not that expensive. Let them know that other 170 owners are advising heavily that this is a life limited part and that truama to it should have special attention. It might be of interest to pull up the old threads on tail wheel springs. There are some good stories and sage advice. Remind the IA that it is his certificate on the line if something happens. Encourage them to replace it rather then use the old one. If you have a connection still to the plane you will do it. D

Ryan Smith wrote:

robw56 wrote:Sure it wasn't 110kts?

Oddly enough, this has MPH on the outside of the instrument and KT on the inside. 95KIAS both directions.

Ina and I flew a Maule M7-235 from Anchorage to the Maule Factory in Moultrie GA a few weeks ago. The airspeed consistently showed 130mph but for over an hour between Macon, MO and Talahassee, FL the groundspeed was above 200mph!

p.s. I know the altimeter shows 100' low. I do that to avoid midairs with the autopilot guys who set the altitude hold at the proper altitude and don't look out the window.

[quote="hilltop170...the groundspeed was above 200mph!

p.s. I know the altimeter shows 100' low. I do that to avoid midairs with the autopilot guys who set the altitude hold at the proper altitude and don't look out the window.
[/quote]

LOL... at THAT speed...you should have been 100' HIGH...due to curvature-of-the-earth!

Ryan, don't worry about the time of day when you call.... if I don't answer, it's because I'm either in the air, in the simulator, or... anyway, call anytime! (Just leave a msg about the subject and the time to call you back if I don't answer.)

Aircraft Spruce has C-170 tailwheel spring for just under $95.00. An excellent investment as many here have agreed. I have seen what a broken tailwheel spring does to the lower rudder and elevator. Its not pretty