The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Hello,
I did a search for info on this question but ....
Is it normal for the main gear legs on a 170A to sag? Mine have a concave sag if you are looking at them head-on. One post I read indicated that the older 170 and 170A legs commonly do this. Should I be concerned about it? It seems that when they are talking about the legs breaking it is at the bend above the axle and not in the middle of the leg . Any thoughts? The wheels don't seem to have any camber and the tires are wearing pretty even.

Thanks
Kevin

Yes the early gear sags and it is normal. Of course the gear could break anywhere but it is unlikely and I haven't heard of them breaking in the middle.

While I haven't seen your gear I'll bet it's normal.

The "saggy" landing gear legs were used on the C-170, C-170A,and the C-170B thru about mid 1953. After that they had the "Lady Legs" style which are much stiffer and make for much better ground handling.

I hate to use the term "sag" because of the connotation, but the early legs did have a "concave" curve to them while the later gear was slightly convex. The later legs have a slightly reduced spring-rate, but I have flown both types and do not think the difference in handling is worth spending any money on it at all. To answer your question....No. It's nothing to be concerned with.

KMac,

You should have seen what your gear legs looked like when we had four 250 pounders in your airplane!!

Thanks for all of your input. I'll sleep better tonight knowing I don't have to worry about replacing the main gear. I am replacing the tail wheel springs and have put the BRS shoulder harness kit in - put a good dent in my budget already. I guess if it'll hold four 250 pounders - my wife and I can bring back a lot of fish when we go camping.

Kevin

"To each his own" , I guess. My personal opinion is that the "Lady Legs" gear is one hell of a lot better than the older style. It was one of the best things that I ever did to my '52 model. Almost as great as the IO-360 engine. And when I tore the gear out from under the airplane, it didn't even bend.

blueldr wrote:"To each his own" , I guess. My personal opinion is that the "Lady Legs" gear is one hell of a lot better than the older style. It was one of the best things that I ever did to my '52 model. Almost as great as the IO-360 engine. And when I tore the gear out from under the airplane, it didn't even bend.

I guess it's personal preference but I agree. Thirty years ago I had an A model with the limp D*** gear. I really didn't care for how it sat when loaded up or how you had to have the sink rate and attitude just right when wheel landing. I got very good with wheel landings but a couple of years later I got the chance to fly it and truly embarassed myself when I managed to get it to spring back in the air what seemed like about five feet or so. I remember I always lusted over the big flaps and later gear legs. When I was looking for a 170 five years ago I really was glad to have found the B with the 180 gear. I always preferred the heavier gear on the 195 also.

Garth Vickery is restoring a 1955 B model (180 hp) here in Bellingham. It has the Lady Legs plus he has a set of early 180 gear that I sold him. A casual inspection side by side the other day seemed to reveal they are pretty much the same. Someday I hope we can get some accurate measurements to see for sure because I've always been curious about the Lady Legs vs. early 180 gear.

I'm not sure if it is the gear legs or what, but, my 180 does seem to wheel land easier than my 170A did. I attribute it to the stiffer gear legs. In my 170A I made mostly stall landings whereas in my 180 I make mostly wheel landings.

Harold
N92CP

Harold Holiman wrote:I'm not sure if it is the gear legs or what, but, my 180 does seem to wheel land easier than my 170A did. I attribute it to the stiffer gear legs. In my 170A I made mostly stall landings whereas in my 180 I make mostly wheel landings.

Harold
N92CP

Hey, Harold! You'd REALLY love the next step in landing gear! You'll simply be totally enamored of the new-fangled thing called TRICYCLE gear....or just for you.....the "Land-O-Matic's"

George,

I may have already told you this, but, back in the late 50's somebody was stupid enough to convert my 180 to tricycle gear. Luckly, somebody in the 60's had the good sense to convert it back to conventional gear. Let the Land-O-Matic crowd stay with the 172's and 182's and leave the 170's and 180's alone.

Harold
N92CP
1953 Overgrown 170 (180)

I believe the early C-180 gear legs are just a bit longer to provide clearance for the longer prop on the C-180.

gahorn wrote:

Harold Holiman wrote:I'm not sure if it is the gear legs or what, but, my 180 does seem to wheel land easier than my 170A did. I attribute it to the stiffer gear legs. In my 170A I made mostly stall landings whereas in my 180 I make mostly wheel landings.

Harold
N92CP

Hey, Harold! You'd REALLY love the next step in landing gear! You'll simply be totally enamored of the new-fangled thing called TRICYCLE gear....or just for you.....the "Land-O-Matic's"

Harold you make a good point, one that I almost wrote in my previous post but I was afraid of being ridiculed.

Aww, Dave! Jump IN!!! The water's fine!! (I've been ridiculed for years and it hasn't shut ME up!)
Cessna's use of the "Wittman" (aircraft designer Steve Wittman (1904-1995) spring gear was a major event in modern aircraft manufacturing. The gear was/is strong, and streamlined by design and solved a lot of complexity and maintanence issues that previous designs carried. (Ever tried replacing the bushings in an Aeronca? Even the simple bungee gear systems require bungee replacements from time to time. But the Wittman spring gear is like the Everready Bunny....bouncy....but it goes on and on and ....)
But so many pilots had trained on spring/oleo systems such as the Stearman, BT-13, Stinson, Aeronca systems that have less "rebound" than the flat spring gear, and those pilots found the spring gear more difficult to adjust to. So Cessna redesigned the later gear with a lessened spring rate to reduce the "bounce". It does indeed seem better to most pilots, especially those that have flown/learned on other landing gear systems.

Does anyone know if the L-19A gear legs are the same as the late model 170B legs? The Bird dog gear is of the "lady legs" design.

What about the L-19E gear legs? They're slightly thicker that the "light weight" ones on the A model.

Are these Bird Dog legs the same as the early C-180 legs?