Wheel Pants Alignment

[GAHorn]

There is a side view of N2935D. It does show two side views of the wheel pants. The backing plates with # 10 PK screws. Original pants and backing plates. GOOGLE N2935D and look for make over debut. Hope this will help. Rusty

N2935D side view.jpg

And here's N146YS (we were taxying out at Lompoc after Mile's convention..had no idea someone took our pic) :

Lompoc.jpg

[Ryan Smith]

So have we determined who's right and who's wrong, or do we need to resort to a gladiator-style death match?

[GAHorn]

...If you look at photos or even early literature from Cessna, you can find evidence of both setups.

....

So have we determined who's right and who's wrong, or do we need to resort to a gladiator-style death match?

Other than "artist's renditions"... I can't recall ever seeing any actual photograph issued by Cessna which showed them mounted any way other than levelled with the ground.

[Ryan Smith]

A month or so ago, I bought a couple sets of axle nuts from a member on here thinking they were going to be harder to find than they actually were. A few days ago, I was prompted to pull my wheel pants down from the shelf in my storage room and bring them inside to have a gander at them. I'm missing the trim pieces that go over the seam on one pant, missing one mudguard, and missing the mounting brackets. My wheel pants are pretty beat up, and I'm curious if it's worth it to fix them or get a pair of Lahti Aerospace pants when I get serious about putting them on. I'd like to repair these because they were the original pants that the airplane left the factory wearing, but they've got some weird damage for the airplane to have never been wrecked.

I wish I had a time machine to go thump everyone in the forehead when they hacked up something or threw something away on this airplane over the years.

[hilltop170]

Wheel pants came on my 1951 A model from the factory, they were listed on the original equipment list, and the backing plates have been re-trimmed from the Goodyear brake cut-outs to fit the Clevelands. I have no reason to believe they were ever realigned from the original installation since there are no re-drilled holes. (The valve stem cut-outs were done before I got the plane.)

As can be seen in the picture, they are in-between level with the ground and inline with the longitudinal axis of the plane. Who knows why they are different, as with many other things, maybe Cessna changed the orientation when they switched to the B model lady legs. That would have been a good thing to ask Mort Brown or Dwayne Wallace.

IMG_5898.PNG

[GAHorn]

How do you know the plates and/or pants are the same ones listed on the equipt. list?

[hilltop170]

How do you know the plates and/or pants are the same ones listed on the equipt. list?

I don't. Other than no logbook entry indicating they were replaced. How many different pants and plates did Cessna offer? The Options section in my Operator's Handbook only show one.

However, whether they are the original ones or not, they are Cessna pants and Cessna backing plates. Did Cessna sell backing plates and/or pants without mounting/alignment holes to be drilled at the discretion of the installer? The Service Kit info posted earlier indicate mounting/alignment holes were factory drilled and ready to install. Were Service Kit parts aligned different than factory-installed?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I think you guys are splitting hairs.

I note that all the pictures of pants level with ground are mounted on '53 and later with the later lady legs. Richard's plane is an A model and I don't recall he's swapped gear so he has the early gear for real pilots. Perhaps the angle of the axle mounting pattern relative to the ground is not the same between gear legs. Also it wouldn't take a lot of difference in the height the tail spring holds the tail off the ground to change the angle of the pant to the ground.

Face it, pants at any angle don't look as good as a set of 8:00x6 (on Good Year [crosswind] wheels to make them legal for the other hair splitters.)

[Ryan Smith]

I think you guys are splitting hairs.

I note that all the pictures of pants level with ground are mounted on '53 and later with the later lady legs. Richard's plane is an A model and I don't recall he's swapped gear so he has the early gear for real pilots. Perhaps the angle of the axle mounting pattern relative to the ground is not the same between gear legs. Also it wouldn't take a lot of difference in the height the tail spring holds the tail off the ground to change the angle of the pant to the ground.

Face it, pants at any angle don't look as good as a set of 8:00x6 (on Good Year [crosswind] wheels to make them legal for the other hair splitters.)

He's got wheels forward 180 legs. I suspect that's the difference. I suppose you haven't looked at Steve Jacobosn's airplane too closely?

[bagarre]

Is there any 170 debate so inconclusive (or inconsequential) as the angle of wheel fairings on the ground?

[Ryan Smith]

Is there any 170 debate so inconclusive (or inconsequential) as the angle of wheel fairings on the ground?

I think this is just a microcosm of original vs. unoriginal.

Your post seems to indicate the red vs. green issue IS conclusive.

#petty

[hilltop170]

I think you guys are splitting hairs.

I note that all the pictures of pants level with ground are mounted on '53 and later with the later lady legs. Richard's plane is an A model and I don't recall he's swapped gear so he has the early gear for real pilots. Perhaps the angle of the axle mounting pattern relative to the ground is not the same between gear legs. Also it wouldn't take a lot of difference in the height the tail spring holds the tail off the ground to change the angle of the pant to the ground.

Face it, pants at any angle don't look as good as a set of 8:00x6 (on Good Year [crosswind] wheels to make them legal for the other hair splitters.)

He's got wheels forward 180 legs. I suspect that's the difference. I suppose you haven't looked at Steve Jacobosn's airplane too closely?

Yes, I did put 180 gear on my A model but I also have pictures before the change that show the same orientation of the pants. The gear change did not change the pant angle enough to notice.

[hilltop170]

Thanks Arash-
Those ad pictures clearly show the difference. Changing the orientation from slightly up on the A model to level on the B model makes the most sense. The pants on my 1950 C-195 also angle up slightly with stock Cessna backing plates so Cessna was consistent in the early 1950s.

Now we can concentrate on the other important issues like exhaust pipe cut-off angles and lower cowl lip width.

[Ryan Smith]

Thanks Arash-
Those ad pictures clearly show the difference. Changing the orientation from slightly up on the A model to level on the B model makes the most sense. The pants on my 1950 C-195 also angle up slightly with stock Cessna backing plates so Cessna was consistent in the early 1950s.

Now we can concentrate on the other important issues like exhaust pipe cut-off angles and lower cowl lip width.

Game on.

[bagarre]

Thanks Arash-
Those ad pictures clearly show the difference. Changing the orientation from slightly up on the A model to level on the B model makes the most sense. The pants on my 1950 C-195 also angle up slightly with stock Cessna backing plates so Cessna was consistent in the early 1950s.

Now we can concentrate on the other important issues like exhaust pipe cut-off angles and lower cowl lip width.

Game on.

Well that's not very original.