need landing gear help

[IWayman]

Hi,
I have a crack in one of my "lady Legs". the left one to be precise. So if anyone out there has a left lady leg they would be interested in selling, I would love to hear about it. That leads me to my question...
I was told my landing gear originally in N1888C, serial #26032 did not have the "lady legs". Does anyone know if that is true.
And,... for you experts, what are the advantages of the different types of legs. I am thinking of putting in the old stock legs if I can't get a left lady leg.
Thanks for your help.
Ian Wayman
IRWayman@ATT.net

[GAHorn]

The early Cessna 170 ("ragwing") and the 170-A and the 170-B up until serial number 25612, all had the same main landing gear legs. They were interchangeable between left-and-right. Subsequent to 170-B, serial number 25612, the landing gear legs changed to a slightly stiffer landing gear which was narrowed just above the axle, the resemblance of which is referred to as "lady legs". The "lady legs" are not interchangeable... they are "handed", meaning they only fit one side and have different part numbers.

Therefore by serial number, your #26032 would have begun life with the later "lady legs" gear. I know where one may be available but will have to try to find the owner again and determine for certain it is the left side as I remember it. Anyone else having one can also respond of course.

You might also try Pponk Aviation at: http://www.pponk.com

VERY IMPORTANT: Can you describe where the crack is located? Can you supply me with a picture? Do you know how it occured?

[IWayman]

Thanks for the reply,
Jim at North Sound Aviation has the legs. He says the left one has a crack at the dimple for the brake line clip. Not sure how it got there, perhaps a manufacturing flaw.
The other one is in good shape, but they had been changed out some time in the past (not a matched set), and that is not a surprise in a 55 year old airplane.
I would be very greatful if you could find one out thewre for me.
Thanks again,
Ian Wayman

[IWayman]

Hello all,
I am not only retarded, but also dyslexic. It is the right one that is cracked.
I just got off the phone with Jim at North Sound and he has found a replacement gear for me. It is used and has yet to be inspected, so hopefully it will still be OK. I am keeping my fingers crossed!
Is the 180 gear that much better than the lady legs (in case the new one is bad)?
Thanks,
Ian Wayman

[GAHorn]

This is my opinion only.

I do not call the 180/185 gear installed on a 170 an "improvement". It is not an "upgrade" either. It is a modification.

The 180/185 modification has no benefit to the average airplane and it has some detriment in that it is heavier and too stiff for the aircraft weight on most surfaces and in most types of normal service. I personally do not wish to see folks make assumptions that converting to these heavier gear legs are an "improvement" of any kind. I believe Cessna got it right from an engineering standpoint from the beginning, but some pilots simply did not like the springy gear. (Most pilots up until the introduction of the Cessna leaf-spring gear had learned to fly on bungee or oleo-spring gear which were quite sluggish in response, therefore most pilots who failed to practice or who were slow learners never got the "hang" of the different spring rates of the leaf spring (so-called Wittman) gear. For that reason Cessna de-energized the gear by installing the "lady legs". One of the great attractions of classic aircraft is their classic design. Making arbitrary changes to that classic design should be given careful consideration before one begins to call every mod an "upgrade" or an "improvement." I encourange most owners to keep their airplanes as "original" as possible from an investment standpoint, and also from an engineering standpoint.

Having said that, I do not fail to notice that aircraft can be modified to better suit a particular purpose or mission. Cessna designed the 170 for the "average" mission, which for most folks are done on relatively good grass or paved runways. Although the standard airplane can handle some pretty rough fields, special missions can be better served by special equipment. One such mission is so-called "bush" flying, which can be described as operating off of especially rough and/or unimproved sites which may contain large rocks and uncut brush.
In such operations a longer landing gear can be useful because it provides greater ground-clearance. The 180/185 legs are longer and they provide greater prop-to-ground clearance. (This also results in a higher deck-angle which makes handling slightly different, but not so much that cannot be acclimated. Greater initial takeoff drag results but that is often unnoticed because it is offset somewhat by less impact from rocks and brush, and also because drag is relatively insignificant during the early portion of the takeoff roll. As soon as the aircraft has accelerated much the tail can be brought up to reduce that early drag. It can be argued that the arrangement allows the pilot the best of both worlds in that he/she can choose to leave the tail low and make an early lift-off if horsepower is available. [Many 180/185 leg-modified aircraft also have engine conversions as well.] )

If you are planning to operate off rough strips you might consider the 180/185 gear a possible benefit, but regardless of whether or not you do, I'd strongly recommend you first budget for the Pponk modification which will improve the strength of whatever gear you have installed. Keep in mind that modified aircraft do not usually give a return-on-investment to the owner when it comes time to sell. 180/185 gear will likely only interest a buyer who also wants to operate off unimproved strips, but Pponk will likely be considered a significant improvement by anyone who knows these aircraft. That's my 2-cents.

[IWayman]

Thanks George,
That is worth alot more than 2 cents to me. I will plan to fly to strips up in Idaho etc on rare occasion and can't justify the 180 gear mod. Most all my 170 time is in N2600V (straight 170) many years ago when a friend owned it. I have very little 170b time since I took it all apart shortly after I bought it. I replaced the corroded gear blocks on both sides and have the PPonk beef up kit waiting for installation (waiting on getting my lady legs back).
I grew up in Santa Rosa (STS) at sea level and now live in Colorado (00V) at an airport/home that is 6680 feet! I understand the initial drag issue. I fly the Stampe bi-plane very different up here at this altitude. Because of the poor performance here, I raise the tail as soon as I can to get rid of all that high angle of attack drag. It accelerates much better with the tail in a level position.
I really appreciate your help!! and this website!!
If the replacement gear doesn't work I am sure you'll hear back soon.
Thanks again.
Ian Wayman

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I think George was very fair in his assessment of 180 gear and I agree with him. I have the original "springy" gear from the early years. I have no problem landing with them in fact consider myself a better pilot when I grease a landing. Because your plane had lady legs that is what I'd try to replace them with. I personally would also consider the older style maybe before I'd consider the 180 gear as a replacement. Having no real need for any advantage the 180 gear might offer like ground clearance, the original gear is usually less expensive with the "springy "gear the least expensive.