The International Cessna^® 170 Association

There are some good thoughts and comments in this thread. Here is my contribution...P:

The original main gear on the 170/170A is not "soft". It is flexible. More flexible than the greased compression-spring gear and bungees on Aeroncas/Pipers/Stinsons/Stearman etc. Those stiff gear techniques do not work well when transitioning to the early spring gear.
The spring gear is not "spongy". It has a "fast" spring rate. This absorbs shock from rough fields without the maintenance headaches of the earlier greased/bungee/oleo gears.
The early 170/170A gear is not a "bad design". It was specifically designed for the series... but Cessna changed the spring rate on the B-model to slow it down which made it easier to learn/transition to for those who learned in the other stuff.
There is nothing "wrong" with the early gear. It is just different and takes a different technique than more maintenance-intensive types.
The early gear did not break due to ski operations. The hollow alum. AXLE would break however and should be changed to the solid alum. or hollow steel axle.
The 180 gear is MUCH stiffer because it is designed for a HEAVIER airplane. In my opinion that makes it incorrect and inappropriate for the stock 170 series. It doesn't take an engineering degree to understand that because of it's too-stiff-for-a-170-spring-rate... it will transfer greater shock and vibration to the airframe and that it subtracts from useful loads. Will that cause unexpected catastrophic airframe failure? I doubt it. But undoubtedly it's harder on components and avioncs, and it undoubtedly contributes to cracks which should be a warning to inspect closely and perhaps more frequently.

I can understand why a 180 gear would be an improvement to a 170 which has undergone certain other modifications such as: heavier engine, heavier/longer prop, higher operating weights, and VERY rough field operations requiring greater ground-clearance.

In my opinion, if you need that much more horsepower and weights and performance it's better to buy a 180/185 or 206. Yes they cost more but they will carry more and a 180 gear/big-engine equipped 170 will only carry less.

If you want to spend money on your early 170/170A.... I'd recommend you spend it on fuel and practice takeoffs/landings.
But if you're the sort of person who's more interested in how to mount your Ipod next to your color-display and,keeping your head inside the cockpit while you tickle the touch-screens instead of learning stick and rudder skills... then you bought the wrong model airplane to begin with,... you should have got a tricycle gear airplane. Real taildragger pilots are REAL aviators and we know trike-drivers know it too.

The 180 gear vs 170 gear (all types) discussion has always interested me. I have flown a number of 170's, but overall don't have a lot of landings in them. Those I have landed seemed not a lot different to me than the gear on my 172 TD. However, if I could fly a 170 with 170 gear, then go fly my plane right afterward I might see a difference.

Richard, I wonder if your preference for 180 gear on your 170 might be partially due to the fact that you also fly your 180 as well as your 195. I, of course, wouldn't know how those two aircraft compare to your 170 other than each being heavier than your 170

I wish I had thought to ask you, after flying my plane to TN, how my gear compared to 170's you have flown and yours with the 180 gear. I am of the opinion that the Bolen conversion gear must be akin to 180 gear due to its thickness and it has never seemed to be springy unless I flubbed a landing

bigrenna wrote:

gahorn wrote:...and that it subtracts from useful loads. ...

When I pulled the gear from my 52, it weighed exactly the same as the stock gear I removed. There was NO useful load subtraction. Only overall benefit. And +1 with blueldr. Double puck brakes in combo with the upgraded gear are *******.

Stock gear you removed? You mean the '52 170 legs weighed the same as the legs on your 180?

180 legs weigh about 20 lbs more than stock legs....and that is a deduction from useful load.

George,
I have to wonder where you found the difference in the landing gear legs weight. I remember weighing my C-180 / axle forward gear legs, but I don't remember that much difference from the lady legs.
I installed those C-180 legs when I made the change to the TCM IO-360 engine so there was a lot of weight change at that time. I chose the axle forward type legs to help compensate for weight of the heavier engine and prop rather than to possibly need to add weight toward the tail along with moving the battery back behind the baggage compartment.

Well, technically they are heavier. My recollection of a huge weight increase was incorrect, and my 20lb weight difference for a gear swap was too high. By a factor of about five.

170 gear legs are between 29 and 30 pounds. Early 180 gear are between 32 and 33 pounds. So a gear swap could subtract as much as 8lb from the useful load of the airplane, or as little as 4lb. Richard brings up valid points about aircraft weights, in that there really isn't a whole lot of difference in weight between the early model 180s and the 170. In fact, I'm sure that well over half of the difference in weight is from the engine and propeller.

I've only flown two Cessna 170s- a stock 1952 B model (my family's) and a heavily modified 1953 model (John Barrett's). I know my family's airplane has the original gear legs, and I am pretty sure that John's does as well. I'd love to fly a 170 with lady legs and one with 180 gear (and small tires) sometime. I'd like to fly a Lycoming-powered 170 for comparison sake...the XP Mods conversion is nothing short of amazing.

Aryana wrote:My $0.02...the view over the nose on the ground when you're in the 3 point stance with the stock 170 gear is ridiculously awesome.

The ramp appeal of the plane with 180 gear when it's parked is stunning. The taller gear gives the plane much more presence and makes it feel bigger when you're standing next to it.

Mine are stock lady legs that will not be upgraded because the forward visibility when taxing is dear to me and I don't have any operations that could benefit from the taller gear.

You guys probably think I'm a wuss by keeping the wheel streamlines and stock lady legs!

I think the two universal truths that have been established are:

1. RED is faster and clearly the superior color.
2. Bare tires suck

Ryan Smith wrote: I think the two universal truths that have been established are:

1. RED is faster and clearly the superior color.
2. Bare tires suck

But I can stand on the tire to clean the windshield. Try that with your wheel panties on......

sfarringer wrote:

Ryan Smith wrote: I think the two universal truths that have been established are:

1. RED is faster and clearly the superior color.
2. Bare tires suck

But I can stand on the tire to clean the windshield. Try that with your wheel panties on......

I stand on my fiberglass wheel pants all the time.
There's also a guy that sells carbon fiber ones that you can stand on and are quite light.

Ryan Smith wrote:
I think the two universal truths that have been established are:

1. RED is faster and clearly the superior color.
2. Bare tires suck

I'm so glad you qualified ALL your answers on the subject Ryan.
Run your tires lean,
paint your airframe green
And for my beer,
add cross wind gear.

Bruce,
Is it possible to have crosswind gear and wheel streamliners installed at the same time?

I accept the criticism...I didn't think about the actual diff's and accepted previous comment .... because I was actually distracted about the mysterious proclivity to spend money to alter an airplane... hoping it will make up for our inability to develop takeoff and landing skills.
I'm not any better than the average guy, I'm sure, but I never had a problem learning the early gear's personality.

But one pleasure any owner gets to have.... is to make his own airplane HIS airplane.

I need to avoid thinking MY thinking should be everyone's thinking..... even tho' I'M right.

johneeb wrote:Bruce,
Is it possible to have crosswind gear and wheel streamliners installed at the same time?

Not with the type of crosswind gear that Bruce has, unless you wanted to build a VERY large custom set of pants. There was an aftermarket crosswind gear, Geisse, that put a u-shaped leaf spring horizontally between the end of the gear leg and the axle. I have seen vintage advertisements of this mod with stock pants.

The iconic 170 cross wind gear fashion pose at the end of the runway, in green, very nice Bruce.

At the risk of adding fuel to a fire, I have heard from people who have swapped gear or bought later aircraft because they had not attained the skill level to consistently land the early gear nicely. They admit that.

It was not their thing to overcome which they no doubt could probably do should they choose to do it. But instead they elected to swap to another gear. No shame, it's just different strokes for different folks. I think anyone, should they want to do so, can land the early gear.

Now want to tackle something special try early gear and cross wind gear. There are only two nuts around that I know doing it and the other nut is better at it than I am. I just haven't achieved his level of skill and may never do so.