The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I had this same issue with my new to me 170 isent the wheel to Alaska bushwheel in Portland and was delighted with their service. One hour labour for the rebuild. I had dissasembled it

buzzlatka wrote:that is the million dollar question. how much play is acceptable?
thanks.

"Acceptable" is a subjective word. Acceptable to whom? IMO, Bruce has fairly lax standards in this matter. (Remember, he carries a complete spare in his baggage compartment and doesn't mind leaving furrows in the grass.)
That may not be acceptable to someone who operates on concrete and never checks the health of their fuel-valve, and who leaves a stream of gasoline under the belly and along the centerline for their broken tailwheel spring to drag sparks into the stream.

Some guys expect the tailwheel to respond somewhat to steering inputs. They don't allow worn or broken parts to remain in service.

I'm one of the latter. There should be no excessive play caused by worn parts.

If you develop a lackadaisicle attitude toward such things, you will eventually pay for it. Bruce was probably lucky his tailwheel departed the airplane when it failed. Had it remained attached to the airplane by the steering chains (as they usually do) it would likely have beaten the rudder, damaging it significantly during the subsequent landing. Go down the flight-line and look at C-120/140/170 rudders. You will see plenty with cracks, beaten skins, replaced skins, and other evidence of repairs to this damage from failed tailwheels. Those repairs can be expensive.

PS: Lest anyone think I'm being critical of Bruce, ...I'm not. That was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Remember, I'm the one who, in 1973, Bogalusa, LA, landed a C-140 at night, dragging a stream of sparks into the middle of an ongoing FAA Safety Seminar.

gahorn wrote:There should be no excessive play caused by worn parts.

"Excessive" is a subjective word as well.

Somewhere, there should be a list of tolerances of when the manufacturer feels the parts should be replaced. No?
The pdf document in the above post comes real close to this with the comment of "spring should just make contact with notched area of the arm".

"Just make contact" could be interpreted as "a hair's width" or 0.00067 to 0.0071 inches but, I might be splitting hairs on the subject

David, the original mfr of this tailwheel was Scott, a Tyco Company.
They made this tailwheel for WAREHOUSE trollies and skids. It became adapted for aircraft use. They did not have "overhaul specifications" of the type we are accustomed for aircraft assys.
The U.S. Army used these on L-19s and had a Mil Tech Manual for it. I've tried for years ...YEARS...to locate a copy
and have been unsuccessful.
If there is "play" from looseness or worn parts....that play is "excessive".
Simple, heh?

alright, parts on order. In the meantime I'm going to have some fun. I figure Ill put the old tailwheel spring on with no tailwheel. Attach a container of gasoline or highly flamable material and go out for a night flight. This should be fun!
George you have some of the most useful info.