Proper gear legs on my '48 170

[jim bell]

I bought this plane 4 years ago and love it. My wife demanded we get a newer plane so I sold the '47 140 and got the 170. The previous owner
had switched to the 180 legs. I know everyone speaks highly of the modification but wouldn't the more flexible original gear be better on the
plane? I've fallen in love with Idaho and some of those strips are a little rough. Also, what is the weight difference?

[gfeher]

This is kind of a controversial subject. A lot are in favor of the 180 legs, or at least the "lady legs" on the '53 and later B models, which I understand are stiffer than the original '48 gear legs. Arash has a '55 B model, so I believe it has "lady legs." I have a '52 model with the original legs, which are essentially the same as original '48 legs. I'm probably in the minority, but I like them. They are probably more bouncy than the lady legs and the much stiffer 180 legs, but I prefer to call them "cushiony." You get used to them and learn to refine your landing technique. Some say they make you better at landings. (And when you do get a bounce, you learn when to just let it settle back down - and when not to.) I'm based at a grass strip and mostly fly off grass, but regularly refuel at a paved field. I find that my gear are perfectly fine in both applications. But I can't say that I do any rugged backcountry flying off unimproved surfaces. So I'll leave any comments about that for others.

As Arash said, your 180 legs make the front of your plane sit a little higher. Also the legs look different - they slightly bow inward (same for lady legs). The original '52 and earlier legs bow out slightly. Some don't like that look. I don't mind it. It's an original look for my model.

If you're seriously considering switching gear legs, I suggest that you find someone with a '52 or earlier model with the original legs who will let you try them out enough for you to find out whether you like them, especially on the kind of strips you will be using (especially if you will be doing backcountry flying.) 180 legs are very desirable. So take your time deciding.

I hope this helps.

Edit: I forgot to mention - 170 gear legs (including lady legs) are reported to weigh 29-30 lbs per leg. The 180 lear legs used on 170's (early 180 legs) are reported to weigh 32-33 lbs per leg. You'll see this info in other threads in this forum.

[ghostflyer]

I have a 170A with legs that are NOT standard 170 legs, they are thick and heavy. Where they come from I do not know . But I love my legs due to the fact I land in the raw bush ,on beaches and old world war 2 airstrips. Some of the strips I have landed on make my teeth rattle . The legs just take it ,sure the wheels move around or vibrate . My gear box section has been beefed up [previous owner] . The aircraft stands a little higher which is good for prop tip clearance . Have looked at different 170 legs and flown a 170b with standard legs ,but no thanks will stick to my legs as they are doing the job .[ NOTE.. just realised when I say “my legs in the conversation ,it’s the 170A legs I am talking about] too hard to change text with a iPad.

[hilltop170]

Jim-
I have 180 gear on my 1951 170A and I like them. But then again, I prefer stiffer gear than softer. I flew many years with the original legs and never had any complaints about them at all, they do the job no matter where you fly.

I think the gearboxes are just fine with either gear and have never heard of anyone having a gearbox problem unless they hit something or ground loop the plane. In those cases it does not matter what gear you have, the plane will get damaged.

If you are bound and determined to take your 180 gear legs off and replace them with original stock gear legs, I still have mine with single-puck Cleveland wheels and brakes and steel axles. I would be willing to work a deal/trade with you.

[DuaneShockey]

I have a 48 ragwing since 1976. It had gear legs with the hole drilled through each to fasten the clamp for the brake line. I was told long ago that they were known to have failed many times over the years for 48's. I heeded the warning and bought some "A" legs from John Benham. They are stiffer and they don't bend as much in a tight turn on the ground causing a squat as the originals did. They are in my hangar if anybody wants them. Duane Shockey

[GAHorn]

I have a 48 ragwing since 1976. It had gear legs with the hole drilled through each to fasten the clamp for the brake line. I was told long ago that they were known to have failed many times over the years for 48's. I heeded the warning and bought some "A" legs from John Benham. They are stiffer and they don't bend as much in a tight turn on the ground causing a squat as the originals did. They are in my hangar if anybody wants them. Duane Shockey

Your msg is slightly confusing (at least to me)... WHICH set of legs is in your hangar? The quote seems to indicate the ones purchased from John D. are in your hangar, but logic implies your original legs are.

(Does this mean you must return all those many "Best Original 170" awards?