N170BP wrote:
George, the amount of weight added to the tail by putting (later)
180 gear on a 170 is not "infinitesimal". A little added weight back
there goes a long way. The early 180s I referred to in an earlier
post are both '53 models, are both similarly set up (Atley Dodge
rear seats, just about the same everything else except the gear
legs). One has stock / original '53 180 gear legs, the other later
model 185 gear legs. The latter is a pig on the ground handling-wise
(the tail is simply too heavy). I realize this is a personal opinion, but
wanted to get the point across that if you do opt for the 180 gear
that has the axles moved forward, it will feel "significantly different"
on the ground (the tail will feel darned heavy indeed). Maybe some
folks like the tail so heavy they can't pick it up off the ground with full
power and full forward yoke. I happen to not like it that way.
I'm thinking Cessna moved the axles forward on the later model
180s because the front end of the airplanes got heavier and heavier
with each subsequent model year (an -R or -K O-470 is 35-45 lbs heavier
than an -A or -J). If they didn't move the axles forward, the later
model airplanes would be too easy to tip over onto their noses
with maximum effort braking.
Once again, we're back to the idea that Cessna did a fantastic
job from the get-go of designing the landing gear for the airplane in
question. Swapping parts out for "heavier duty" 180 parts (such as
gear legs) can have advantages as well as disadvantages.