The International Cessna 170 Association

My T3 tailwheel assy is on finally. I got the field approval on Friday. I am A DAR but of course cannot do them on my own aircraft. I will do Field Approvals for these on 170B's and 170A's with a 170B tailwheel attach structure. I am impressed with the attachment to the aircraft. It goes on easy and fits well. Attached to the aircraft in 5 places. That combined with my Baby Bushwheel should make rough ground somewhat smoother. Can't wait to try it out.

Interested to see how this helps with geometry of the bushwheel. I find it almost impossible to stop shimmy on pavement with a regular tailspring.

No field approvals in Canada, so no T3 for me.

learaviator wrote:My T3 tailwheel assy is on finally. I got the field approval on Friday. I am A DAR but of course cannot do them on my own aircraft. I will do Field Approvals for these on 170B's and 170A's with a 170B tailwheel attach structure. I am impressed with the attachment to the aircraft. It goes on easy and fits well. Attached to the aircraft in 5 places. That combined with my Baby Bushwheel should make rough ground somewhat smoother. Can't wait to try it out.

I hope that picture was pre-approval-- they don't steer so well on the ground with the chains dangling...

Seriously, though, this looks like a great setup. I saw a couple of them on 170s at Oshkosh this year.

What is the weight change with compared to the steel springs? is it the same length? (is the TW still at STA 249?)

falco wrote:

learaviator wrote:My T3 tailwheel assy is on finally. I got the field approval on Friday. I am A DAR but of course cannot do them on my own aircraft. I will do Field Approvals for these on 170B's and 170A's with a 170B tailwheel attach structure. I am impressed with the attachment to the aircraft. It goes on easy and fits well. Attached to the aircraft in 5 places. That combined with my Baby Bushwheel should make rough ground somewhat smoother. Can't wait to try it out.

I hope that picture was pre-approval-- they don't steer so well on the ground with the chains dangling...

Seriously, though, this looks like a great setup. I saw a couple of them on 170s at Oshkosh this year.

What is the weight change with compared to the steel springs? is it the same length? (is the TW still at STA 249?)

The steel tailwheel spring assembly and associated hardware that was specific to the spring weighed 5.33 lbs. The T3 with all associated hardware was 7.64.

Good Evening.

My T3 tailwheel assy is on finally. I got the field approval on Friday. I am A DAR but of course cannot do them on my own aircraft.

It seems that the STC has been just around the corner since 2005 from the posts I've seen! Any chance you or someone else that has done this might share some words of wisdom regarding the 337 form and what is best to include. As you know, 170's were certificated under the old CAR's and it infers alternatives to the tailwheel were pretty well accepted/authorized. That said, is the Field approval more of a CYA for insurance?

Would love to hear your thoughts once you fly with it.

K

When Bob Jolley and I returned from IN to AR with Assoc’n parts for storage at Mountain Airframe…. we saw that Del was performing a major rebuild of a 170 which included an IO-360 (TCM) and a T3 tailwheel. It looked….. “robust”…

That is on my Christmas wishlist

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/m ... d-approval

23 years old, but good article explaining field approvals.

I can say it's all I'd hoped for. Very smooth. Steering seems a little better too, but I replaced my straight arm with a bent steering arm so I'm not able to accurately compare.

Smooth in what way? Smooths out rough ground? Better than just the Bushwheel? I do a little rough-field flying, but I'm having a hard time seeing where I'd benefit from having one of these, nicely-engineered though it may be.

I really enjoy seeing modern solutions for old planes, and absolutely appreciate the folks that are going through the costs and work to get them approved.

However I got to see one of these on a 170b recently. The rudder had a small "bite" crushed in where the new tail spring assembly appeared to have over-extended and impacted the rudder. Aren't they intended for lighter aircraft? Maybe this was an adjustment issue?

From my experience (and discussion with pilots more experienced than me), the only real danger to the tail comes from lateral loading or impacts, not force inline with the intended axis of flex. I don't see how this design would protect from lateral loading any better than the leaf spring?

All the best off airport pilots I've ever known in any airframe, don't even set the tail down to the ground unless they are pretty much at a stop. -Except maybe a quick impact as the tail touches before the mains. That shouldn't be a big hit though, and then you just roll up onto the mains for hard braking.

A benefit I might see would maybe be for the pavement STOLl comp folks who like to just drop their plane onto the ground with high force in the hope of shorter landing. I don't really know that much about that kind of flying though. -Maybe I'm off there.

Thinking out loud, I suppose that maybe when taxying on large rocks (softball or bigger) maybe it would reduce stress on the tail.

If this was lighter than the leaf spring or cheaper, I might look closer. Heavier, more complex and more expensive for unknown benefit makes it a pass for me.

Anyone that knows what I'm missing, please tell me!

I saw one of these on a 170B going thru with high number of modifications as if the owner had lots of money to invest and wanted the “latest and greatest” of whatever can be put on a 170. Big engine, lots of airframe mods.
It was a high-quality installation done by one of my favorite shops….and it looks really robust…. But I cannot for the life of me see how it would make any significant improvement to a properly maintained 170. I’ve been waiting to see if any proven advantages are shown over the next few years. Being the skeptic I am… I’m not holding my breath.

DaveF wrote:Smooth in what way? Smooths out rough ground? Better than just the Bushwheel? I do a little rough-field flying, but I'm having a hard time seeing where I'd benefit from having one of these, nicely-engineered though it may be.

Been off the forum for a while sorry. Definitely smooths out the rough ground compared to my standard non bush wheel setup. In my case, my tail spring and associated hardware was getting pretty beat so it wasn't a huge chunk out of my wallet to go that route. I don't have any experience in a plane with bushwheels so I can't compare.

Cheers

Evening,

Vertical wrote:All the best off airport pilots I've ever known in any airframe, don't even set the tail down to the ground unless they are pretty much at a stop. -Except maybe a quick impact as the tail touches before the mains. That shouldn't be a big hit though, and then you just roll up onto the mains for hard braking.
!

You started off so nicely then you just had to go there!? I land how I land on my 1400 feet (I know, may as well be JFK) and it makes me comfortable. I don't taxi over boulders, dandelions sometimes depending on the time of year, but definitely no boulders. Anyway, I like the T3. No, I don't like the extra few pounds. I do appreciate the usual forum buzz kill though.

Cheers

Hey! Ha! What happened to this post from Tailwind:

"I'm all about the weight as much as the next guy and I wish I was one of those guys who doesn't deserve to have a 170 because he has too much money and too may mods, because I'd have a 185. In any case.... I'm happy with it, thanks for the usual forum buzz kill boys.

It just disappeared...