Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 133

Thread: Cessna 180 question

  1. #1
    FiftyNineSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like

    Cessna 180 question

    for you 180/185 guys out there....do any of you have any experience with "upgraded" landing gear such as heavy duty 185 gear or the XP mods titanium? I'm just wondering what the benefit is and what it takes to install a set of 185 gear on my 1955 180.

    The reason I ask is that my early .700" thick gear seems to be sagging a little and definitely feels "squishy" compared to others that I fly.

    thanks for any input you guys can provide.

    Bill

  2. #2
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    For the Ti gear, you will have to remove some material from your outer gear box as part of the initial installation. I have not flown the stuff, but I would have it if it were available and I had the means.

    The 185 gear will stiffen-up your 180 quite a bit. Depends on how you want it to be and your intended tire size, and how much load you normally haul, if it will go on skis....................?.........?.

    The '53 that I just finished was spec'd. by the new owner to include 180 gear, not 185 gear. The guys idea is that he's reasonably sure to be on 8.50's and intends to do mostly smooth stuff and prefers to have a smooth taxi.

    I know the guy's mission and that he'll go on skis and that he'll put quite a load in it at times, so I was surprised that he wanted to stay on 180 gear, but the guy knows what he wants and has spent time in this a/c, so that's what he got.

    I bet I didn't help you much ? DAVE

  3. #3
    FiftyNineSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dave,

    Thanks for the quick response. Was the 180 gear that your customer wanted from a late model? The reason I ask is that later model 180's came with "heavy duty" gear that is thicker and heavier than the stock early model gear. I've been looking at those as an option too.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  4. #4
    zane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bill,

    You should get those new gear so that I can buy your old set for my 170. The early 180 gear are what I'm after!

  5. #5
    FiftyNineSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TripSlip38
    Bill,

    You should get those new gear so that I can buy your old set for my 170. The early 180 gear are what I'm after!
    That sounds like a good deal! I've got a friend that has a set of 185 gear that are pull offs on his float plane. They only have about 30 landings on them. I was thinking since I mostly frequent unimproved strips and prefer a firmer ride, they might be the ticket.

    I'll keep you posted if I decide to do it. Just found out the XP mods titanium are about $10K (with trade in) so it looks like I'll be going the used 185 route if it's worth it.

  6. #6
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    11,420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    One piece of wisdom I have gleaned from the 180/185 guys is that it is cheaper to buy a 185 than to convert your 180 into one, likewise, it is cheaper to buy a late model 180 than do al the mods to your early model one.

    I'm just going to keep flying my early model mostly as is (although I will say the 185 gear is one thing I might do!) until santa brings me a 185, which I hope corresponds with fuel costs going down also.

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  7. #7
    zane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve if you keep upgrading at this rate, you'll be in a Turbine Otter in a few years.

    Bill, let me know when you get around to swapping those gear. PM or email me. -Zane

  8. #8
    Crash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Nikiski Alaska
    Posts
    2,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Cessna 180 changes

    Here is a list (used from another site) of the changes to the C-180 over the years. sorry it's so long. In 1957 they went fron .650 gear legs to .700 and in 1964 they went to C-185 gear legs at .750 thick. 1957 to 1959 are the best year models in my opinion. They were still in the light weight airframe but had a higher GW, cam lock door latches, better engine, better airbox, and better exhaust. The only thing I wish they still had was the mechanical fuel gauges in the wing root.

    Take care! Crash

    1953 Model 180 Comments - Serial numbers 30,000 through 30,639 (only 639 built)

    The baggage capacity is 120 lbs. and this is the same in all later models. The 1953 model did not have an outside baggage door and the only access to the baggage compartment was over the fold-down backseats. Controllable cowl flaps are standard on the model 180 and a large access door is standard on each side of the cowling. Engine exhaust is through dual mufflers - one of which is shrouded for carburetor heat and one for cabin heat. (A Stewart-Warner gasoline heater was optional through 1955). Fuel gauges are direct reading mechanical type. The engine was the O-470-A.


    1954 Model 180 - Serial numbers 30,640 through 31,259 (only 619 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. An outside baggage door was added, measuring approximately 15 x 22 in. This baggage door is standard also in all succeeding models.
    2. The engine was changed to O-470-J near the end of 1954 production.


    1955 Model 180 - Serial numbers 31,260 through 32,150 (only 890 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. A slower turning engine, the O-470-J, was standard, producing the same horsepower as in the previous model, but at fewer rpms.
    2. The main wheels were moved 3 inches further ahead for improved braking and ground handling. This was done by changing the rake (forward angle) of the spring steel gear.
    3. New heavier 1/4 inch thick windshield for better soundproofing and extra fiberglass soundproofing was added to the cabin and wing-butt areas.
    4. Fresh air inlets were moved further out on the leading edge of the wing. This placed them outside of the propeller slipstream and lowered the noise level in the cabin.


    1956 Model 180 - Serial numbers 32,151 through 32,661 (only 510 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. A new engine was used for the 1956 models - the O-470-K, developing 230 hp at 2600 rpm. These engines featured larger steel cast cylinder heads having thinner and more numerous fins - for cooler operation. Additional dynamic dampeners were used and these plus revised engine mounts produced a much smoother, quieter, vibration-free engine operation.
    2. The engine cowling was redesigned by adding a carburetor airscoop at the bottom this gives more engine power from the ram-air effect and is said to give up to 1 1/4 inch more manifold pressure at high altitude than the previous arrangement.
    3. A new large stainless steel single muffler was used for the first time with separate compartments within the muffler for carburetor heat and cabin heat. This had a long single exhaust stack at the lower left side of the engine cowl.
    4. The tail wheel was modified to give more steering ability.
    5. The fuel vent to the main tanks was moved to a new position behind the left wing strut to prevent ice formation in icing conditions.


    1957 Model 180 - Serial numbers 32,662 through 32,999 and 50,000 through 50,105 (only 442 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. The gross weight was increased 100 lbs.
    2. The gear leg thickness increased from .650" to .700".
    3. A fuel strainer drain control was added to the inside for ease of draining fuel without having to reach under the cowl.
    4. Instrument panel rearranged and new electric fuel gauges used for the first time. Engine instruments used were smaller non-standard types.
    5. A heavier door seal was used. For ease of locking, a new cam type latch was used for pulling the door in tightly on the seal. A flush long lever type outside door handle was added for ease of opening the door.
    6. A generator-warning red light was used to replace the ammeter. This also served to warn that the master switch is on when the engine is not running.
    7. A vacuum selector switch was used on the panel to allow checking the vacuum of either the directional gyro or the artificial horizon.
    8. The fuel capacity was increased from 60 to 65 gallons total. This plus a modified, more economical carburetor, increased the range.
    9. Note - it appears that the empty weight increased about 50 lbs. in the 1957 models. This is not entirely true since the unusable fuel rating was upped and this fuel included in the empty weight.


    1958 Model 180A - Serial numbers 50,106 through 50,355 (only 249 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. The engine exhaust outlet was changed to the right side on all models to route the exhaust stain down under the fuselage - on earlier models there was some tendency for exhaust stains to accumulate on the left side of the fuselage due to slip-stream effects.
    2. New seal put around windows for reduction in wind noise.
    3. New instrument panel and new lighting console. The tachometer and m.p. gauge went back to standard size.
    4. A new ratchet-click mechanism added to the elevator trim wheel to prevent creeping.
    5. Lock with key for opening added to baggage door.
    6. An 18-gallon aux. baggage compartment fuel tank was a factory installed option.


    1959 Model 180B - Serial numbers 50,356 through 50,661 (only 305 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. New heavier door hinges.
    2. New instrument panel.
    3. New adjustable fresh air vents for the rear seat area. (optional)
    4. Optional pilot and co-pilot 3- position tilting seats.


    1960 Model 180C - Serial numbers 50,662 through 50,911 (only 249 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Fuel cells changed to incorporate flush gas tank caps on the upper surface of the wings to replace the original counter-sunk caps.
    2. Seat backs made adjustable with optional headrests.
    3. New smaller, streamlined wing fillets (flap area).
    4. The airscoop was removed and the airscreen flush-mounted on the front of the cowl. The net effect of the cowling redesign was to produce slightly more airspeed, although Cessna never advertised this.
    5. New stabilizer-elevator down spring to improve longitudinal stability.
    6. Increased headroom in the third and fourth seats due to a redesigned bulkhead and skin on top of fuselage.
    7. First year for the O-470-L engine.


    1961 Model 180D - Serial numbers 50,912 through 51,063 (only 151 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Cowling was changed to incorporate cam locks for holding it on.
    2. "Shower of Sparks" Bendix mags were used for easier starting. A special switch was used under the instrument panel to supply primary current to the mag coils without engaging the starter to allow hand cranking of the engine.
    3. A new lever-type cowl flap control with mechanical position notches.
    4. New generator - 50 amp, as standard equipment - all.

    1962 Model 180E - Serial numbers 51,064 through 51,183 (only 119 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. New fuel tank outlets added, so that each wing tank has two outlets (one forward and one aft) rather than only one per tank. This gives a less unusable fuel rating.
    2. New optional long-range wing tanks, increasing capacity to 84 gallons.
    3. New O-470-R engine.
    4. New wing tips and position light mounts.


    1963 Model 180F - Serial numbers 51,184 through 51,312 (only 128 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. New magnesium cast rudder pedals.
    2. Magnetos changed to the impulse coupling type replacing the "Shower of Sparks".
    3. Instrument panel lighting controls in overhead panel.
    4. Semi-reclining front seats.
    5. First year for 10 degree flaps.


    1964 Model 180G - Serial numbers 51,313 through 51,445 (only 132 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. New instrument panel, new heavy-duty axle and new third window on side.
    2. Dive speeds (red line) increased to 192 mph I.A.S. on all models from the previous 184-mph red line speed. Flap lowering speeds increased to 110 mph.
    3. Gross weight increase of 150 lbs. with more useful load.
    4. Changed to 185 landing gear.
    5. Third window added to fuselage.
    6. Manual tail wheel lock.
    7. Cleveland dual piston brakes.
    8. Generator replaced by 52 amp, 14V alternator.


    1965 Model 180H - Serial numbers 51,446 through 51,607 (only 161 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. 182 firewall used, making 180 and 185 airframes identical.
    2. Redesigned instrument panel to accommodate center stack radios.
    3. Open view control wheels.
    4. Improved fuel strainer.
    5. Integrated engine instrument cluster.
    6. Redesigned doors on engine cowl.


    1966 Model 180H - Serial numbers 51,608 through 51,774 (only 166 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Improved door latches.
    2. Front seat legroom increased.



    1967 Model 180H - Serial numbers 51,775 through 51,875 (only 100 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Pointed propeller spinner increases length 3 inches.
    2. Extended baggage area in aft cabin.
    3. Aeroflash rotating beacon.
    4. Optional auxiliary door on left side.
    5. 60 amp alternator.
    6. Individual center passenger seats.
    7. Split bus electrical system.
    8. Cleveland brakes standard.


    1968 Model 180H - Serial numbers 51,876 through 51,993 (only 117 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. New baggage door.
    2. Fuel strainer cable relocated to oil filler door.


    1969 Model 180H - Serial numbers 51,994 through 52,103 (only 109 built)

    Improvements and New Features


    1. Skywagon name used for the first time with Model 180.
    2. 300/400 ARC avionics available.
    3. Fresh air vents restyled.


    1970 Model 180H - Serial numbers 52,104 through 52,175 (only 71 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Conical camber wing tip decreases wing span 4 inches.


    1971 Model 180H - Serial numbers 52,176 through 52,221 (only 45 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    No major changes made.


    1972 Model 180H - Serial numbers 52,222 through 52,284 (only 62 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    No major changes made.



    1973 Model 180J Serial numbers 52,285 through 52,384 (only 99 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. "Camber lift" wing with bonded leading edge.
    2. Revised instrument panel with rocker switches.
    3. Dual cowl mounted landing and taxi lights.
    4. Split rocker master switch.
    5. Padded control wheels.


    1974 Model 180J - Serial numbers 52,385 through 52,500 (only 115 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Optional cabin door bubble observation windows.
    2. Optional skylights and lower door panels.
    3. Optional rudder pedal extensions.
    4. Vertical fin attachment redesigned.



    1975 Model 180J - Serial numbers 52,501 through 52,620 (only 119 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Engine changed to O-470-S, horsepower remained 230 hp.
    2. Improved cabin heat valve.
    3. The optional float plan kit includes the C-185 vertical fin to the end of production.


    1976 Model 180J - Serial numbers 52,621 through 52,770 (only 149 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Primary airspeed indication in knots.
    2. Flush folding 5th and 6th seats.
    3. Flap extension speed increased to 120 knots.
    4. McCauley main wheels and brakes.
    5. Last year for auto fuel STC.



    1977 Model 180K - Serial numbers 52,771 through 52,905 (only 134 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Engine changed to high compression O-470-U. Horsepower remained 230 hp but at 200 rpm less.
    2. Vernier mixture control.
    3. Heater plenum relocated to firewall.
    4. Strengthened tail wheel.
    5. Basic flight instruments in "T" configuration. More holes and lowered control yoke 1 1/2". Went to smaller yokes for knee clearance.
    6. First year for McCauley tail wheel and stronger tail wheel gear spring tube (1 1/8").


    1978 Model 180K - Serial numbers 52,906 through 53,000 (only 94 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. "Skywagon II" referred options package available.
    2. 28-volt electrical system, avionics master switch.
    3. Polyurethane paint standard.



    1979 Model 180K - Serial numbers 53,001 through 53,115 (only 114 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. New design optional wheel and brake fairing.
    2. Bladder tanks were discontinued. (Wet wings). 88 gallons total, 84 gallons usable. 1979 to 1981 models.


    1980 Model 180K - Serial numbers 53,116 through 53,167 (only 51 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Improved audio panel.


    1981 Model 180K - Serial numbers 53,168 through 53,203 (only 35 built)

    Improvements and New Features

    1. Improved avionics cooling system eliminates exterior ram scoop.



    Last 180 completed (SN - 18053203) rolled off the production line September 10, 1981. Total production was 6,193.
    "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". Psalm 111:10

  9. #9
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cessna 180 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Crash
    Here is a list of the changes to the C-180 over the years. sorry it's so long. In 1957 they went fron .0650 gear legs to .0700 and in 1964 they went to C-185 gear legs at .0750 thick. 1957 to 1959 are the best year models in my opinion.
    Crash-

    What material are these made out of? Spider webs?


    Crash.... Maybe I can trade you the super heavy duty gear off of our 172....it is .650 thick I would love to have a set of the .0650 speed gear
    Tim
    Piper J-5A C-90 N40877
    J-5 Project Pictures

  10. #10
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    NIce one!

    A decimal point sure means alot in some discussions.

    Crash didn't mention, it, but after the first year of the Cessna 180, the geometry of the gear legs changed, placing the wheels slightly forward of the earliest gear by about 2 inches.

    They didn't have that on Stancil's website, Crash?

    Bill, the gear on the recent refurb. is 11/16 nominal, though the measurement varies with location.

    Here is a link with ample description of the Wittman gear on your Cessna:

    http://www.xpmods.com/maingear/identification.asp

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Calkins
    Crash didn't mention, it, but after the first year of the Cessna 180, the geometry of the gear legs changed, placing the wheels slightly forward of the earliest gear by about 2 inches.
    It's mentioned in the description of the 1955 model.

    Fascenating reading. Thanks Crash.

    John Scott
    While I respect the folks that use Cubs to make a living, my uses are for recreation and leisure - AND I'M NOT ASHAMED!!!

  12. #12
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    13,368
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Did a lot of work on 1953 C180. It had lighter gear which I was told was the same as the 170. It did rock around a lot more but I thought the advantage to the older 180s was they weighed less and flew better.
    Steve Pierce

    "When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
    Henry Ford

  13. #13
    Crash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Nikiski Alaska
    Posts
    2,580
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sorry about the decimal point out of palce, I went back and fixed it.

    The jury is still out on the TI gear (good, bad, indifferent). One thing I didn't like about it is that you have to hog out the outer castings to get it to fit. Once you do it you would have a hard time going back if all in a sudden they found out there was something wrong with TI gear. It's also now really expensive stuff.

    Take care. Crash
    "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". Psalm 111:10

  14. #14
    Bob Breeden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia and Alaska
    Posts
    740
    Post Thanks / Like

    53 C-180

    Regarding the 53 C-180, and the rake of the gear, it actually better approximates the Super Cub in several ways: It is easier to get the tail up on takeoff (compared to later 180's), and also easier to balance on the maingear with moderate braking on landing. And, during ground handling it doesn't have as much of an "iron tail" feel that loaded 180's and 185's have.

    I sold a 185 about 5 years ago, and a year ago began flying a 53 180 - a fast super cub. But it still doesn't get flown near the hours that the Cub does.

    Two Cents.

    Bob Breeden

    www.AlaskaAirpark.com

  15. #15
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Titanium Gear:

    1. expensive
    2. won't corrode
    3. takes, what, 29 pounds off the gear weight
    4. it's new, so you don't have to wonder when the stress cycles will show up in a lost airplane due to cracked-out steel gear
    5. it looks cool
    6. heck, it's TITANIUM! Who doesn't want something made of titanium??

    I'm just havin' fun here, guys.

    Decide for yourself. Here's a link: http://www.xpmods.com/maingear/titaniumqa.asp

  16. #16
    zane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce
    Did a lot of work on 1953 C180. It had lighter gear which I was told was the same as the 170. It did rock around a lot more but I thought the advantage to the older 180s was they weighed less and flew better.
    In '55 Cessna changed the gear on the 170 to a slightly pre-stressed/curved leg that was a little stiffer. I believe even the early 180 gear are still stiffer though that the 170 gear. They all have part numbers, XP Tom has a guide on his site: http://www.xpmods.com/maingear/identification.asp

    Think of me if you happen across a set of these early 180 gear They're getting to be like hen's teeth.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Crash - that was great I will store it in my files.

    Bob - here's a question I have been puzzling about: with the possible exception of a very strong crosswind, I find that both the 180 and the Cubs seem to get off a good bit earlier if left in a lazy three-point attitude. Why do folks always raise the tail on takeoff? A better question: When using flaps (good for short/rough fields) is there ever any reason to get the weight all on the mains? A lot of 180 drivers swear by flaps 20, then raise the tail for takeoff. Costs me an extra 100 feet every time I try it! And that's regardless of flap setting.

  18. #18
    FiftyNineSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner
    Crash - that was great I will store it in my files.

    A lot of 180 drivers swear by flaps 20, then raise the tail for takeoff. Costs me an extra 100 feet every time I try it! And that's regardless of flap setting.
    My experience is similar to yours. I use 20 degrees and 3 point it off. Whenever I raise the tail i add 50-100' to the roll. That's just been my experience. On a rough runway that's long though, I will raise the tail because tailwheels are expensive.

    As far as the gear thing goes...I'm probably going to go with a later model set versus the TI gear. XP mods wants $10K (after trade in) for their gear.

    Does anyone know what it will take paperwork-wise to install a late model set of gear on my 1955 model?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  19. #19
    SuperCub MD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Collins, Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    When I was a kid flying my first 170, I remember running across a old timer who had worked 170/180s for a lot of years. We were talking about them, and I mentioned that I wanted to put 180/185 gear legs on it to take the bounce out of my landings. He said something like, "Kid, all you are going to do is make it ride rough and beat the **** out of the airplane, keep the soft legs on it and learn how to land the thing." Sometimes those old timers are right.....It was definitely the smoothest riding ski plane I ever had. I'd only change a spam can to stiffer gear if I were operating at high enough weights that the gear was always splayed out.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner
    Bob - here's a question I have been puzzling about: with the possible exception of a very strong crosswind, I find that both the 180 and the Cubs seem to get off a good bit earlier if left in a lazy three-point attitude. Why do folks always raise the tail on takeoff?
    Well, theoretically (and I say that recognizing theory and practice are often different) it would seem that the airplane should acccelerate faster in the level flight attitude....the thrust line is aligned in the direction of travel, the wings are at a low angle of attack, resulting in less drag. As far as flaps, on a smooth hard surface, the flaps don't add anything except drag until liftoff.

    So, again theoretically, the best performance would result from beginning with the airplane magically in a level flight attitude with zero flaps, and then, just before you reach liftoff speed, the airplane magically changes to 3 point attitude with takeoff flaps.

    Why do you think that you get better results? not saying you don't, just asking what you think causes the takeoff to be shorter? Additional drag from the elevator holding the tail up? Bad timing in the rotation from level to 3 point?

  21. #21
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Theoretically, AND in practice, the rotation phase (now to be known as the "magically changing to 3-point attitude with takeoff flaps" ) can actually be detrimental to short takeoff performance.

    What I'm talking about is when a dude aggressively rotates and yanks the flaps 'on' at the PREcise MOment that he believes the a/c will fly.

    The wing MAY experience partial airflow seperation at that MOment.

    Conversely, Jerry Burr has intimated that an extremely tail high takeoff roll followed by a smooth rotation to 3-point with flap application will provide a nice takeoff.

    I can visualize it as the downward-swooshing tail and smooth flap application compressing the air gathered under the wing and tail.

    Lots of compromises in flying, but I usually go with the tail-low takeoff unless a stiff x-wind is present. I am of the opinion that this method will get the a/c flying positively away from the ground in the shortest distance without the guess-work of the 'rotate' method.

    Maybe we should start a new discussion on this

  22. #22
    Bob Breeden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia and Alaska
    Posts
    740
    Post Thanks / Like

    Tail

    Oh - Bob and guys I just checked back in......

    Well, there are plenty of times to leave the tail down, I agree. A gravel runway and prop care come to mind. I'll do some comparisons with a plain Jane tail low takeoff in the 180 next time I'm out and see what the distances are.

    I do enjoy balancing on the mains, that's an old habit that serves well in the rough (again, more of a super cub thing), even just lifted an inch or so, or all the way up, depending on the circumstances.

    In rough crosswinds, getting the AOA out during the roll until ready to fly takes out some equally rough handling issues - when the wing has no bite, it has no lift - until it is time to launch.

    And then there are times to cobb it tail down with lots of flaps and get the weight to the wing asap!

    I sure like the gentle feel of these older 180 gear legs. Conversely, in the Cub, I prefer the tightest, firmest, newest bungees available.

    In the '80's, oldtimers told me that Cessna responded to some noseover accidents caused pilots unfamiliar with the Cessna taildragger airplanes early on by offering forward extensions for the gear legs for some 100 series Cessnas. I have always thought that the newer 180 gear was designed with that "insurance" in mind. It costs on crosswind landings, though!

    As Steve says, part of the freedom we enjoy is making our own decisions on just how we fly - or something like that!

    Bob Breeden

    www.AlaskaAirpark.com

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tail

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Breeden
    In the '80's, oldtimers told me that Cessna responded to some noseover accidents caused pilots unfamiliar with the Cessna taildragger airplanes early on by offering forward extensions for the gear legs for some 100 series Cessnas.
    True, if you look carefully at the gear on 120s and 140s you'll find some that have a little forward extension bar, which moves the center of the axle forward a little. It isn't much, and it's not real obvious from a distance.

  24. #24
    Jr.CubBuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tail

    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Breeden
    In the '80's, oldtimers told me that Cessna responded to some noseover accidents caused pilots unfamiliar with the Cessna taildragger airplanes early on by offering forward extensions for the gear legs for some 100 series Cessnas.
    True, if you look carefully at the gear on 120s and 140s you'll find some that have a little forward extension bar, which moves the center of the axle forward a little. It isn't much, and it's not real obvious from a distance.
    Interesting, I've been wondering for years what the point of those was.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    180/185 gear on e-bay.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Wheel...QQcmdZViewItem

    John Scott
    While I respect the folks that use Cubs to make a living, my uses are for recreation and leisure - AND I'M NOT ASHAMED!!!

  26. #26
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, WA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is such a good thread I wanted to bump it to the top!

  27. #27
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Calkins View Post
    Titanium Gear:
    ......
    Decide for yourself. Here's a link: http://www.xpmods.com/maingear/titaniumqa.asp
    looks like they forgot to pay their bill......

  28. #28
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, WA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    looks like they forgot to pay their bill......
    Hey Mike is this the same guy?
    http://www.tdaero.com/index.html
    If so he's still in business. I am going to have him refurbish steel 185 gear legs for my 180.

  29. #29
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    You got it, there! He's changed the name, same guy.

    The mechanic guy next door at Hood just sent out a set of Ti gear which TDAero inspected and yellow-tagged....so he's still at it.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    info on TD Areospace regarding TI gear legs

    I own a cessna 180 and received this from the FAA
    Attached Files Attached Files

  31. #31
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EEindNW View Post
    I own a cessna 180 and received this from the FAA
    That dont sound good.....Whats that mean????? He lost/gave up pma (or because of name change??) but still was making and selling parts?? Thats gonna make people cranky..

  32. #32
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    That dont sound good.....Whats that mean????? He lost/gave up pma (or because of name change??) but still was making and selling parts?? Thats gonna make people cranky..

    so there must be a deeper story here I didn't hear a few years ago...

    ......

  33. #33
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, WA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't think he ever had PMA approval for his gear legs. I think they we're being installed as an owner built part. As an airplane owner you can direct how a part is made for your airplane. Like a CAD cut out instrument panel.


    Just what I heard........

    And actually a divorce prompted the name change.
    Last edited by Charlie Longley; 10-28-2011 at 08:41 PM.

  34. #34
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Kougarok View Post
    I don't think he ever had PMA approval for his gear legs. I think they we're being installed as an owner built part. As an airplane owner you can direct how a part is made for your airplane. Like a CAD cut out instrument panel.....
    Ah!! I see....

    also see why feds have their panties in a wad....

    part numbers XP0741001-77 & -88, and steel spring main landing gear assemblies, part numbers PP0741001-7 & -8
    kinda hard to claim it as an owner produced part when you assign them a part number like that.....

    looks like he did formally make them under PMA for STC install
    which had FAA Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) in conjunction with the STC’s listed below.

  35. #35
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    3,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Kougarok View Post
    I don't think he ever had PMA approval for his gear legs. I think they we're being installed as an owner built part. As an airplane owner you can direct how a part is made for your airplane. Like a CAD cut out instrument panel.
    Actually Kougarok, I believe that an owner produced part has to be the same as the original. If the part is not exactly the same, it then becomes an unapproved alteration. Changing from whatever spring steel that Cessna has approved to Titanium is NOT, in my view, in accordance with the FAA's "owner produced parts" authorization. I would be very leery of changing the type of steel on my 185 landing gear without using a tested and approved materiel. That could be extremely expensive.
    N1PA

  36. #36
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, WA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Actually Kougarok, I believe that an owner produced part has to be the same as the original. If the part is not exactly the same, it then becomes an unapproved alteration. Changing from whatever spring steel that Cessna has approved to Titanium is NOT, in my view, in accordance with the FAA's "owner produced parts" authorization. I would be very leery of changing the type of steel on my 185 landing gear without using a tested and approved materiel. That could be extremely expensive.
    I got that part from the 135 guy in Alaska I bought my steel 185 gear from. I think the they're going with the Titanium is as good or better than original. I'll pull the CD on the 185 in question and see what kind of paperwork they filed out of curiousity. I suppose someone could just call Tom and ask him.
    Last edited by Charlie Longley; 11-04-2011 at 08:04 PM.

  37. #37
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Kougarok View Post
    I got that part from the 135 guy in Alaska I bought my steel 185 gear from. I think the they're going with the Titanium is as good or better than original.
    "...as good or better than the original..." is not how the "owner produced part" thing works.

    I'm not saying the following has anything to do with landing gear, but.........sometimes a "better" or "stronger" part can cause a failure somewhere else in a structure that the original engineers had planned for....or not.......I'm just saying.

  38. #38
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, WA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Calkins View Post
    "...as good or better than the original..." is not how the "owner produced part" thing works.

    I'm not saying the following has anything to do with landing gear, but.........sometimes a "better" or "stronger" part can cause a failure somewhere else in a structure that the original engineers had planned for....or not.......I'm just saying.
    I suspect that they did some engineering. I may have mis-spoke. I am not 100% sure how they are approving the Ti gear. I know they aren't PMA'd though.

  39. #39
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    3,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Kougarok View Post
    I suspect that they did some engineering. I may have mis-spoke. I am not 100% sure how they are approving the Ti gear. I know they aren't PMA'd though.
    There are two approvals required. First is a STC for the Ti gear legs to be installed on whatever airplane. Second is a FAA-PMA to be able to reproduce the parts to the STCd specs and install them on the airplane which is defined in the STC. The PMA is the certification that the part complies with the STC. The manufacturer has to acquire the PMA (Parts Manufacturing Approval). The manufacturer is not necessarily the STC holder. I believe (but not certain) that if a owner gets written (to prove to the FAA) permission from the STC holder to use the STC along with the drawings, then the part could be a "owner produced part".
    N1PA

  40. #40
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, WA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Actually Kougarok, I believe that an owner produced part has to be the same as the original. If the part is not exactly the same, it then becomes an unapproved alteration. Changing from whatever spring steel that Cessna has approved to Titanium is NOT, in my view, in accordance with the FAA's "owner produced parts" authorization. I would be very leery of changing the type of steel on my 185 landing gear without using a tested and approved materiel. That could be extremely expensive.
    It turns out they've been doing owner produced Ti gear IAW Tom's STC. But I could see where the Feds are getting there panties in a wad over the part numbers on them!

Similar Threads

  1. Cessna Gear Leg STC Question
    By toobuilder in forum Modifications
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 02:28 PM
  2. cessna TU206 question
    By munro in forum My Other Plane Is A....
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-21-2006, 02:49 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •