Dual-puck Cleveland brakes

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:11 pm

Back in April 2001 Eric kindly sent me a 337 for the dual-puck brake installation on a 170. It also requires 180 gear - the heavy ones at that (P/N 0741001-5 and -6) Come to find the late model 180 gear springs are scarce as hen's teeth. Does anyone know of any for sale ?
The FAA have promised field approval IAW Eric's 337 and I've decided to bite this expensive bullet. Would appreciate your thoughts-
Does anyone else have a 337 for the dual puck brakes ?
(I know, we discussed this a long time ago on the old forum)
Rudy

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:28 pm

Hi Rudy,

This auction for new 180 gear legs has recently ended, but, the person might know of some more for sale, etc. Good Luck!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 06287&rd=1

N170BP · Post by **N170BP** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:38 pm

I upgraded to double-puck Cleveland brakes on my '54 which
has stock (170) gear legs. I can e-mail you a copy of the 337
(in .pdf format) if you'd like....

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:22 am

I think that "Tailwheel Tommy" of XP Mods told me a while back that he occasionally has used 180 gear legs on hand (customer trade-ins from his titanium gear leg sales to the Skywagon guys?). You might check with him--Bela posted his phone numbers,etc recently,I think it was on the topic about Scott vs Maule tailwheels.
I can't see why they would have a problem with approving the brakes on 170 legs,but who can figure the feds out?

Eric

ak2711c · Post by **ak2711c** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:10 am

I have installed them on a 53' with stock legs with no problem. Field approval was easy but I am in Alaska. There is an old timer that lives in Anchorage that recently closed the doors to his shop. He has a life times accumulation of parts that he is selling off. Among those parts are something like 5 or 6 sets of 180 gear legs. If memory serves me right he was only asking $1500 per pair. I can dig up his name and number if anyone is interested.
Shawn

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49 pm

Thanks for the input, guys. I'd appreciate any 337's for double-puck brakes on standard 170 gear legs. Shawn, yes, please post that fellow's name etc.
Rudy

ak2711c · Post by **ak2711c** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:52 am

Rudy, the guys name is Pete Knutson. His phone # is (907)345-1963. As I understand, all of the gear legs have been bead blasted and primed, and I think all of them are the forward swept version but don't quote me on that. Good luck.
Shawn

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 6:13 am

Shawn, Thanks very much.

Rudy

Harold Holiman · Post by **Harold Holiman** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:28 pm

Double punks and big tires on pavement can stand a 170 on its nose. I saw a discussion on single vs double punks somewhere some time back and it cautioned of this.

Harold H

N170BP · Post by **N170BP** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:36 pm

Well, the thought that popped into my mind is that there are
many types of airplanes flying around out there with brakes
good enough to put them on their nose.

There is more braking power available, so you just have to
be cognizant of that.

Double-pucks on a stock 170 can really make for a super
short landing on pavement with proper technique.... 3-point
at minimum airspeed with some power on, upon touchdown
flaps up ASAP & modulate as much brake as you dare grab
while counteracting it with as much aft yoke pressure that's
required to keep the tail from coming up. The idea is to get
max weight on the mains as soon as possible and keep it there.

I don't always land that way, but it's nice to know the capability
is there.

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 12:56 am

My reason for wanting stronger brakes has nothing to do with landing short. I can land my 170 wherever it can get out from. My problem is taxiing in a 20k crosswind. I have trouble keeping the airplane from weathervaning. Never had that problem when I flew 180's or other TW airplanes. I have the small single puck Cleveland brakes on my 170. Does anyone else have this problem ?
Rudy

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 2:35 am

Rudy,do you not have enough braking power to keep it tracking straight,or do the brakes fade out on ya?
Regarding nosing over,I have 180 gear legs and double-pucks. The 180 legs have more forward rake to them,so it's harder to nose the airplane over. If my head was far enough up and locked (!),I'm sure I could do it though!
There's more weight on the tailwheel than stock,though,sometimes a bummer if there's also a load in back. It's easy to have the tailwheel plow in dirt grass or sand instead of turning,and maybe having the CG farther behind the mains--or more accurately,having the mains farther ahead of the CG-- tends to increase the potential for a ground loop?
I think that it does change the ground handling,like Bela mentioned once.

Eric

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Eric, there's not enough braking power to keep tracking straight when taxiing in a a brisk crosswind. Landings are no problem- I hardly use brakes other than to taxi so I'm not really worried about putting it on its nose.

CAS · Post by **CAS** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:57 pm

Puttin legs on that move the wheels further ahead of the CofG will make the aircraft more directionally unstable because:
1. the CofG will effectively be further aft and so the centrifugal force will have more effect, and

2. there will be more keel surface area aft of the pivot point (main wheels) for any crosswind to push on.

Therefore, it would seem, one would then require better brakes to keep straight

Maybe, if you put these new legs on backwards it would move the wheels further aft (maybe even aft of the CofG) and then put a wheel at the front to keep the prop from hitting the ground ..... no, that would never work ....

There are pros and cons whatever you try.
It seems to me the best compromise would be to keep the main wheels where they are, fit more effective brakes if possible, and be careful when/if braking during wheeler landings.

[or wait until the wind dies down

]

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 4:32 pm

CAS, those are my thoughts, precisely !
Rudy

The International Cessna 170 Association

Dual-puck Cleveland brakes

Dual-puck Cleveland brakes

double punks vs single punks