Internal tailwheel steering cable pulleys access

[inland]

My 1954 170B has internal tailwheel steering cables. I am trying to re-rig the cables onto the internal pulleys, but I can't figure out how to get access to them. Can anybody help me? Lance Borden, Houston, Texas, N1928C.

[minton]

Unfortunately you must remove the tail feathers to gain access OR as I did install an "owner produced" access panel below that area (Field approval).

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

You are aware that your airplane serial 26073 did not come from the factory with that steering cable arrangement. That didn't start till 26505 or the '55 model. So someone has been in the area you seek.

[daedaluscan]

This tells you my story with a slipping cable in that area:

http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... 24&t=10652

[minton]

You are aware that your airplane serial 26073 did not come from the factory with that steering cable arrangement. That didn't start till 26505 or the '55 model. So someone has been in the area you seek.

Bruce,
Many people upgrade tail wheel steering due to the older style causing maintenance headaches. I have upgraded mine and love it. It was done with a logbook entry using Cessna surplus (used) parts, however the access panel was a "Field approval". It does involve either changing or modifying the bulkhead to accommodate the pulley system. Still worth the trouble in my opinion AND a good time to check those rudder cables for wear!!
Just my opinion as many others hate the newer style I think because of the access issues.

[GAHorn]

'Scuse me...but I'm calling B.S. on naming the internal tailwheel steering an "upgrade". (Jes' messin' w' ya, minton)

Although Cessna clearly had improved tailwheel steering in-mind when they created that Rube-Goldberg arrangement... in actual fact, the tailwheel is STILL merely attached to steering springs which do not impart anything more than "encouragement" to the tailwheel to move left/right depending upon rudder-pedal input.

The result is the same...but the later system is an addit'l maintenance headache and a potential failure-mode which does not exist in the early system.
I've flown several examples of both and I observed no discernable difference between the two, and anyone who undergoes the trouble and expense of altering their system to the later method has several problems: 1) Wasted money/time/effort. 2) Increased possibility of internal bulkhead damage from frozen/locked/stressed pulleys and brackets. 3) Added, unnecessary weight and complexity in a disadvantageously aft position. 4) Increased maintenance in an inaccessible area. 5) NO change in rudder OR tailwheel deflection angles. 6) Lack of approval authority due to serial number inconsistency and conflict (unless additional paperwork is approved such as FAA Form 337. Unlike the flap ratchet situation, in which Cessna issued approval for later sector installation, I have never found any Cessna approval basis for the tailwheel steering change for early serials. I'd be happy if someone can supply such to the assoc'n.)

Subsequent production changes are not necessarily product improvements, IMO. (Think of the C-175. ... And before the arguing begins, let me say that I consider this to be another case of "I've spent the money ....so it must be worth it."
Personally, ... I consider the early style the preferred method. (KISS principle)

BTW, Lance... it's possible your serial data plate is not original. Just sayin...

[daedaluscan]

I have never flown an earlier model but I must say I tend to agree that the original solution was probably better. And I own the later one.

[bagarre]

I've tried both too, and I didn't notice a difference. They both had the same directional authority

That's like saying a Senator and a Congressman both have the same level of honesty

[blueldr]

Some years back, I had a '55 model that had an access panel on the right hand side of the fuselage just below the horizontal stabilizer. There was nothing in the log book indicating that it was field installed. At the time, I assumed it was "factory".
On this particular aitplane, the steering cables to the tail wheel were attached to the rudder cables up in the fuselage with "Kearney" bolts.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

BTW, Lance... it's possible your serial data plate is not original. Just sayin...

An internet photo of N1928C shows it to have the 54 and earlier D window. It is not likely a 55 disguised by a different data plate

[GAHorn]

Bruce, Lance is who purchased Earl Eastabrooks airplane.

[jlwild]

As an older 170 member I remember Earl Eastabrooks telling me at the Galveston Convention the tail section was not the original to his airplane. Something about a prior owner replaced the tail section from a donor aircraft when it was damaged. You might want to check the early log books carefully to see if there is mention of such a repair.

[GAHorn]

As an older 170 member I remember Earl Eastabrooks telling me at the Galveston Convention the tail section was not the original to his airplane. Something about a prior owner replaced the tail section from a donor aircraft when it was damaged. You might want to check the early log books carefully to see if there is mention of such a repair.

Thanks for the reminder, Jim. I knew there was something about that particular airframe but couldn't quite recall. (Must have something to do with the "older 170 member" thing.)

(Now it returns to me, ... the data tag on the engine is not original, having been previously lost.)

[n2582d]

In the MX Library you'll find SL81-41 and instructions for SK185-27. These have to do with adding an access panel in the rear tailcone of the C-185.

[minton]

I could be wrong but I think that addresses access to the horizontal trim jack screws.