The International Cessna 170 Association

I am replacing the gear as part of my restoration. Although 180 gear are an option, is there any reason lady legs can't be used? Any help here is much appreciated. Mike

They work fine on my Ragwing. Only problem might be finding a set.

Thanks

Why do you feel it necessary to replace your original gear?

Wondering if you feel the original gear is going to fail before any you replace them with? Or maybe you've heard that lady legs or 180 gear are so much better cause they have less spring? Maybe you feel heavier or taller gear are necessary for of airport operations?

In my opinion:
Your original gear will be fine and look right.
Lady legs will work but look odd to anyone who appreciates the look '48.
180 gear is likely over kill and will look more awkward than lady legs on a '48 as generally a '48 isn't tricked out for off airport operations.

The beauty of a '48 is generally they are less modified and simple than A or B models. More true to their roots and tend to be lighter because of it. And being generally lighter than most A or B examples, they have their own nice flying qualities A and B model owners would like to have.

The gear have what I would refer to as a plug where the step goes for the 120/140. I have had to address a lot of corrosion on the control surfaces and tail. I have drilled a lot of things apart, remediated, and put back together. Hence, the gear have to have had poor attention and they make me nervous. I would love for them to be OK, but I can't be sure. The 2007 discussions regarding Cessna gear are troubling. I don't know if magnaflux will give me comfort. I concur with many of your thoughts, just a hell of a lot of work for the gear to not be part of the party. I am putting in the P Ponk, regardless. Thanks for your thoughts.

I would have faith in any leg if they were cleaned, magnafluxed and the surfaces repainted. If you get replacements, you'll have to go through the same process anyway.So I would go down that road and either find out if they are any good even if just for spares if you elect to find replacements.

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:Why do you feel it necessary to replace your original gear?

Wondering if you feel the original gear is going to fail before any you replace them with? Or maybe you've heard that lady legs or 180 gear are so much better cause they have less spring? Maybe you feel heavier or taller gear are necessary for of airport operations?

In my opinion:
Your original gear will be fine and look right.
Lady legs will work but look odd to anyone who appreciates the look '48.
180 gear is likely over kill and will look more awkward than lady legs on a '48 as generally a '48 isn't tricked out for off airport operations.

The beauty of a '48 is generally they are less modified and simple than A or B models. More true to their roots and tend to be lighter because of it. And being generally lighter than most A or B examples, they have their own nice flying qualities A and B model owners would like to have.

He just sold one of the prettiest ‘53 B models I’ve ever seen and it had 180 gear. I’m sure he’s familiar with the differences between gear legs and may have had some left from his B model when he upgraded to the 180 gear.

I like the old soft gear, personally. It’s what I learned on and I’ve gotten used to it’s idiosyncrasies. I’ve only flown 180 gear on a 180 and the gear was rather firm.

melcessna wrote:The gear have what I would refer to as a plug where the step goes for the 120/140.

The plug I think you might be referring to might be what remains of a bolt which was used to hold the brake line clip or something plugging that thru hole. Gear from 18001 to 19219 had this hole. Gear from 19220 to 25611 only had a dimple. If your's has two holes from a 120/140 step then it's been modified. All bets are off if that is the case.

Here is the warning posted here received by George from the FAA in 2007.

http://cessna170.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4968

What I took from it at the time was pitting is not good. Excessive pitting is really not good. Pitting in a row such as that which might be found from a step attached to the gear is really not good.

I don't recall any of the broken gear coming from a conventional gear type, but that of a tricycle gear.

Years ago I replaced my 48 gear legs. When I made a turn on asphalt and stopped in the turn the legs did a squat. And then there was the issue of the drilled hole for the brake line clamp. John Benham and other very knowledgeable members explained they had seen more than one gear failure by breakage at the area of that drilled hole. John sold some "A" model legs to me and they have been fine. Duane Shockey in San Diego

My aircraft s/n 19006 had drilled holes in the main landing gear spring originally. The history is that the left hand leg broke on landing and tore out the gear box and damaged the LH wing and strut. A donor wing was fitted with a strut coming from Alaska. The gear box was roughly repaired and totally replaced much later . Going by the numbers on the gear legs ,I believe the new main gear springs were sourced from a L19 . While the springs are firm and 8in tires are fitted it’s very accomodating to the terrain I land on .
What makes me smile this all happen when I was a small boy at school and didn’t know what a Cessna was. Part of the pleasure of owning this aircraft is tracing and tracking its history.

Anybody who wishes to have these over flexible gear legs I have (with the drilled holes for originality) can have them for free. Just pay the shipping, and they are HEAVEEEE ! Duane Shockey-San Diego

Gentlemen, I have sourced gear replacement. Thanks for your help.