Tail Wheel steering and other hopes

[Chris Christensen]

While in McCall Idaho recently I had reason to replace my Tailwheel springs.
While we were at it the mechanic showed me how to get some semblance of steering of my new 3200 mechanism while it is still in contact with the ground. I have always had to use a fair bit of brake to get my 170 to wander over in the direction I hoped it might go.

I know of another pilot who recently beat me to a 1954 stock C-180. The early 180s also had the rudder cables come out rather high above the tail wheel. BUT, there apparently is a "seaplane option / kit" available that relocates the rudder cables lower down near or at the bottom of the fuselage, and more in line for a straight pull on the tailwheel.

I have flown enough newer 180s to know that they steer like a go cart on the ground relative to the 170s I have flown.

SO, QUESTION, Challenge, Plea, etc.
Does any one know if there is a similar kit or mod / option that would help with tailwheel steering for the 170. ?!?

I really would like to be able to get away from having to utilize ANY brakes on some of those skinny Idaho strips.

[lowNslow]

If you look in the parts manual (page 107A) all 170s serial number 26505 and on had this setup. I have not flown one with this, but from what I've heard it did not help much.

[voorheesh]

I have stock 170A with Scott 3200 and do not need any brake to steer unless for a pivot turn. Could you have problem with steering spring tension/adjustment or possibly the plates in the tailwheel are too tight or need lube? I have flown several other planes with Scott 3200 including a Champ I owned for many years and I dont remember needing brakes.

[hilltop170]

There is a fairly in-depth discussion of tailwheel steering in;

http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... +extension

In that discussion is a picture of a field approved mod on my plane which does improve the steering. It was installed under a multiple field approval which only one shop in Alaska has authority to install. There is no reason you couldn't try to get it approved locally using the same data. If you want to try to get approval before any money is spent, contact me and I'll forward the design info I have.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

As mentioned most subjects including this one have been discussed an depth. I just wanted to say here that it's been my experience that 4 out of 5 170s do not turn without some braking. How much braking might be determined by the condition of the tail wheel and associated parts that activate it. Occasionally you will find a 170 with just the right CG, spring angle, tail wheel adjustment and condition that very little or no braking is needed.

Comparing a Scott 3200 on any other airframe is just not an apples to apples comparison. There are just to many different things between different airframes ie Super Cub and 170 for example.

[voorheesh]

Another thing to check might be main landing gear tracking (toe in/camber). If it is not set up right, the plane will take some brake to get it to steer straight or make a turn. In my 170 if you want to turn you put in full rudder a little early and you apply opposite rudder a little early to stop the turn. Very light braking(wind) to no brakes needed (calm). I make 90 deg turns like this all the time with no trouble. Maybe I am lucky but I have flown a few other 170s that seem to be the same. I flew a 185 a few years ago that was kind of tail heavy and I recall needed braking to get it to cooperate in taxi. But I also remember thinking maybe it was me not being used to a 185 that was the problem.

[blakelewis]

I purchased N3163B in March of this year and October was my first annual. I did an owner assist annual. An excellent experience.
The 3200 was not working correctly. In calm conditions I don't really need the tail wheel steering, so no problem. In a stiff cross wind I was having some problems on the taxi way, but since I didn't know how it should preform I did know there was a problem.
I realize it was not preforming properly when I had the tail jacked up, and was moving it through it's motions to test the steering. The paws would only grab in one direction and would break loose before it hit the steering limit. The notches on the steering yoke that the paws grab were worn, and required a bit of dressing with a file. Just a few strokes. Now when the wheel hits the steering limit there is a bit of a clunk when it lets loose. Do you guys feel the wheel disengage? If you do what does it feel like?

Blake

[GAHorn]

It's not especially noticeable.... the tailwheel just unlocks when I hit the brake on one side and the fuselage sorta "clanks" and around she goes!

[cmsusllc]

OK guys, I've been following all the conversations on tail wheel steering for the last nine months. During this time I have rebuilt mine on my 53B. it now works like it should but doesn't steer well. Question that nobody has ever mentioned, what should the chain tention be- tail on the ground, jacked up? I have mine set to be barely snug with the tail jacked up which results in tail wheel action in only the last 10% of rudder travel. I use to fly a frends A model which steered better but the chains were very snug even while on the ground.This seems like too much of a wear and tear itam to me.What is the proper rigging?
Scott- 53 B with Lycon cnnversion.

[GAHorn]

This has been in many discussions and I do not know how it was missed.
The tailwheel chains should be "snug" or "taut" with the aircraft resting on the ground at 2,000 lbs weight. (The tension springs are intended to allow the tailwheel to descend while in flight without damaging the steering system.) If the chains are loose on the ground, then how in heck can they be expected to provide any input to steering? (And what little input they do provide should only be classified as "encouragement" anyways. Judicious use of brakes is required to steer this airplane on the ground.)

[cmsusllc]

Thanks gahorn. My A&P / IA told me that this was the proper setup. His specialty is 180's and 185's so I don't know exactly where he is comming from. I do know if I take up one link it steers much better. Is there a half link or some other way to adjust for exact centering of tail wheel and rudder or is that really necessary? And yes I do know that at best it will only hint at or " encourage " steering.
Scott- 53 B N1889C SN: 26033

[mrpibb]

For personal education reasons we are trying this setup on my ship for fine adjustment, please excuse the bent HD? steering arm, that was during my compression spring trial debacle.

[GAHorn]

That's an imaginative solution to a problem that is imaginary. (The purpose of the springs is to accomodate the chain-length necessary to achieve tautness/constant-tension on the tailwheel steering.) There is no need for a "half-link". Simply remove the whole-link and let the springs keep the chain taut. (Not to mention the fact that modification to a landing gear does not meet the requirements of a "minor" alteration. What is the basis of approval?)

[4stripes]

Chains taught on the ground will result in fairly large forces being imposed on the lower rudder attachment control arm in flight. The tail spring flexes with normal weight applied changing the distance between the tailwheel and the control horns. A very nice hole will form as it rests against the attachment to the fuselage caused in flight with rudder movements. Makes for a brisk business replacing this part. I've done mine once and now leave my chains with some slack to reduce wear. I know GAHORN will have lots to say about it, but I've been flying this way for many years with little or no change in "controllability".
Cheers Eric

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Chris I agree and so rig my chains with more slack than I'd like to and put up with less responsive steering. I know how this system was designed as George has pretty much driven that home but it's not the best good system designed to last 60 years.

I also use shacks and or eyelets so that any wear if any will be on cheap replaceable parts.