Benefit of 180 gear over 170 gear???

pif_sonic · Post by **pif_sonic** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:21 pm

I have read a lot of postings regarding conversion to 180 gear. Do any of the 170 owners who have 180 gear installed, think there is a noticeable difference? Are there any 170 owners who are in the process of putting 180 gear on their 170? Is it worth the cost? Is the original 170 gear really that bad? Does the 180 gear help in landing?

Thanks for all the info in advance.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:21 pm

I have the later (raked forward) 180 gear on mine. I don't know if I'd go thru the hassle of installing 180 gear if I had lady legs on a 170. The earlier ragwing gear is too soft from what I've seen, I might want to replae that. I think the lady legs would be just as good or better than 180 legs, unless you need the extra height. If that's the case, you probably need bigger tires too so you'll be taller anyway.
What I don't like about mine is the forward rake, it makes the tail heavy cuz the mains are farther ahead of the CG. Makes it more prone to the tail overtaking the nose if ya get out of shape landing -- not as if that ever happens to me! The gear itself is heavier too.
Why are you considering 180 gear? Is yours saggy or bowlegged? You can have the gear re-arched. That might be a better option, cheaper too- 180 gear legs go for a lot of dough nowadays.
XP Mods website has some good Cessna gear leg info. http://www.xpmods.com

Eric

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:57 am

I think you might want to look at this from the standpoint of the type of runways ops you are considering... if you are going to be landing on paved runways and halfway decent grass strips you'll be fine with the standard gear. If you are going to be landing in the back country on rough terrain, gravel bars, and the like, you may want to consider heavier gear and/or the PPonk beef up kit, but I'll let our more experienced back country folks address that.

I got my '52 (with the original gear and NO PPonk kit) when I had 10 hours TW time and 110 hours total and I've had no problems on paved runways and local grass strips. It's a matter of technique - kinda like transitioning from a car that automatic to a stick. Once you've done it for a while it becomes second nature. I wheel and 3pt my '52 all the time and have never wished I had different gear. I'm not saying I wouldn't appreciate heavier gear, but at the same time I've not had anything happen that would make me want to go to the expense of switching over either. I suppose those used to heavier gear may find the original gear undesireable, but I imagine it's a question of what you are used to.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:37 am

I flew the stock soft gear on my '52 for years and thought it was just fine.
When I finally installed the "Lady Legs" gear, I was kicking my butt for not doing it years sooner. I had a set in my hangar for some years before installing them. They just make the airplane handle better any time the wheels are in contact with mother earth. I am willing to admit that the later styles of landing gear don't do anything for the airplane in flight, and the additional thickness of the legs (1/8" in.??) may even create additional drag.

1SeventyZ · Post by **1SeventyZ** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:57 pm

I've been considering this same gear upgrade, as I've heard that the "soft" orig 170 gear splay out like newborn foal when loaded to gross. I talked to a guy who had flown both, and said that the 180 gear are noticably stiffer and possibly not as forgiving on a hard landing and will keep you more honest. Anybody here second that?

Finally, what are lady legs? I just got my 170 and am still learning about it. Are they a special version of the gear, or a later model version of the stock 170B gear?

Thanks. -Zane

Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:12 pm

Zane

"Lady legs" are the later gear found on 170s after about 1953 as I recall.

You can easily tell whether you have them over the original version by looking at the gear. Just above the area that the axle bolts to at the rear edge the gear leg narrows. The original gear was interchangeable between sides as it was symmetrical in this area. At least but maybe not solely because of the narrow part of the later "lady legs" they are not interchangeable between sides.

I have the early gear on my airplane which is essentially a B model. exchanging the gear with a different model is a modification I don't even consider and I have and will continue to fly at gross.

In my mind the major reason for changing to the 180 gear is because the 180 gear is taller. Taller gear not only gives better ground clearance but changes the angel of incidence of the aircraft on the ground. The change in incidence can allow a shorter take of roll.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:18 am

I was looking at a 170B this last Summer that had lady legs installed as original. There was a set of early 180 gear on the floor. We couldn't see any difference by measuring.

I had the early 170 limp legs on my A Model back in '76. I got good with it but hated the splayed out look when loaded. I'll bet of those who have changed them out very few would go back.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:46 am

Installing the C-180 landing gear will definitely increase the "angle of attack" on the ground, but the "angle of incidence"??? come on fellas!

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:33 am

That's what I thought I said BL.

cessna170bdriver · Post by **cessna170bdriver** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:52 pm

N9149A wrote:Zane

In my mind the major reason for changing to the 180 gear is because the 180 gear is taller. Taller gear not only gives better ground clearance but changes the angel of incidence of the aircraft on the ground. The change in incidence can allow a shorter take of roll.

I think what Dick is getting at is that the word "incidence" technically refers to the angle between the chord line of the wing and the longitudinal axis of the airplane. The angle of incidence is what is changed by adjusting the eccentric bushings at the rear spar attach point.

Angle of attack, on the other hand is the angle of the relative wind to the chord line of the wing. With all three wheels on the ground at the beginning of the takeoff roll, longer main landing gear legs will result in a higher angle of attack.

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:37 pm

Yep Miles I knew that and most times I type the word I mean but not always.

What I'm trying to say is BL is correct, I meant to type angle of attack.