1953 Cessna 170/180 gear box

[n4517c]

I need to verify that the 53 170 gearbox construction is identical to the 53 180 gearbox construction. Cessna Aircraft doesn't get excited over requests for this type of information. Does anyone have a 53 only parts manual that can be compared to the 170B manual. The early 180 parts manual that I have referenced is no good because cessna did make changes to the gearbox design over time(minor). Thanks

[N170BP]

What specifically do you need? Measurements? Part numbers?
I am helping completely restore a '54 C-180. The fuselage is
gutted, gear legs are out and the floor boards have been drilled out.
I'll try to help if I can (give me an idea what you're looking for).

I can tell you that just eyeballing it, the fuselage of the
'54 C-180 from the forward door-posts / boot-cowl aft
looks identical to my '54 C-170

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

[n4517c]

Thanks for your help. What I need to confirm is that the landing gear bulkhead assembly parts as shown in Figure 21 of the 170B parts manual are in fact the same ones installed in the 53 or 54 180 and that Cessna did not add any stiffeners or doublers. Only the gearbox parts are important. If part identification numbers can still be seen in your gearbox, that would answer the question. I've been working on an STC for the 180 gear and if the parts are the same in those overlapping years it would simplify the process greatly. With field approval becoming increasingly difficult due to new Faa directives, an STC seems the way to go. Thanks again

[zero.one.victor]

You might try getting on the Skywagon site (http://www.skywagon.org) & posting a request for somebody to send you a copy of the pertinent pages from the 1953 180 parts catalog. Be advised,a lot of them 180 guys are kinda snooty,and look down their noses at 170's--even though a lot of them used to own 170's! I guess that extra 80 or 85 horsepower can go to your head,in more ways than one!

Eric

[GAHorn]

The FAA has rescinded the handbook rule which blocked field approvals. Field Approvals are being issued as always under the latest FAA handbook.

[n4517c]

George,
I'm being told by both FAA Gado and FAA engineering that field approvals will still be issued as per 8300.10 change 15 (10/30/02) but that DER substantiation will be required for any change except the trivial. This requirement will turn a simple 337 into a major project. For all the effort. and expense you might as well get an STC. What does the FAA in Texas say?

[Harold Holiman]

Eric,

I hope I'm not one of the snooty 180 owners that used to own a 170. I went to the 01 Indiana convention in my 180 and plan to go to Wilmington in 03. I still call my 1953 180 a overgrown 170 with a funny tail. I will look for the parts numbers in my parts book this weekend or sooner if possable and post the parts numbers here, unless somebody else beats me to it.

Harold H
Mbr# 893

[GAHorn]

George,
I'm being told by both FAA Gado and FAA engineering that field approvals will still be issued as per 8300.10 change 15 (10/30/02) but that DER substantiation will be required for any change except the trivial. This requirement will turn a simple 337 into a major project. For all the effort. and expense you might as well get an STC. What does the FAA in Texas say?

My previous comment was following a lengthy discussion with the SAT FSDO. Lots of verbage that says things are back the way they were prior to the attempted September change.

[zero.one.victor]

The way I heard it was,if you want a field approval of anything major,Alaska is the place to do it. Most FSDO's in the lower 48 are pretty hard to work with doing anything not STC'd,even things that are fairly common--180 gear legs for example.
This is from talk I've heard,NOT personal experience.

Eric

[n4517c]

George,
I'm curious about what FAA Texas is telling you about 8300.10 . Handbook Bulletin HBAW 02-03 has in fact been cancelled but 8300.10 change 15 reads almost word for word like HBAW 02-03 and as far as I can tell has not been cancelled. I was told that just yesterday by the FAA and it remains on their website. Also if you follow supercub.org the changes are a major topic of conversation and the FAA has met with pilots just recently to explain the changes and the Alaska exemption. It seems that different information is being supplied in various regions of the country. I hope FAA Texas is right!

[Harold Holiman]

Morrel,

I made copies of pages 59, 60, & 61 from my 180 parts book which cover the landing gear bulkhead area. I do not have a scanner but if you will give me a fax number I will fax them to you.

Harold H
Mbr# 893

[n4517c]

Harold,
Thank you very much. Fax at work 207 876 3566 Thanks again.

[zero.one.victor]

Harold,you're a credit to Skywagon owners everywhere! Must be your 170 background!

Eric

[n4517c]

Harold,
Thanks very much for the fax. Could you post the year of your parts manual or is it the 53-62 manual?

N170BP,
Harold's parts manual shows only three parts to be different in the whole gearbox and bulkhead assembly. All of the bolts and highshear rivets are identical. The outboard bracket assembly ( 170B fig 21-47 ) and two angles ( 170B fig 21=54 and 55 ) are given different numbers from the 180 numbers. They can't be too different because they mate with all the other parts which are identical. Also, there may be a mistake in the 180 manual since the number for the lower angle is the same as the 170 number for the upper angle. If you have time look at those three parts and see if you can spot a difference. Chech out the slot opening in 47 to see if they made it a hare bigger. Also, did Cessna enlarge any rivets. Many thanks

[russ murri]

I have recently installed 180 legs on my ragwing with field approval from the spokane wa. fsdo. after i got the wordage correct it was simple. the reason that the part numbers are differant is that the stock 170 legs are 5/8'' thick and the early 180 legs are 11/16'' thick. I will be sending the 337 form into headquaters soon. If there is anything I can do let me know. Russ