For Sale, 180 main landing gear, P/N 0741001-3,4, media blasted, inspected, magnafluxed, re-arched (per Cessna DWG/template) shot peened, heat treated, mag particle report and 337 included. Donation to BCP with sale. PM for details.

Bump

What year, early or late?

mtv wrote:What year, early or late?

"Early or late?"

Cessna made 4 sets of gear for the 180/185, -1,2 -3,4 -5,6 and -7,8.

-1,2 was used on the very very early birds, using the same geometry as the 170, but with a different spring rate. They are also a bit thicker and a bit more robust. For example, you would not want to run large bushwheels on the early C170 legs as they are just not strong enough in the ankles.

-1,2 were ONLY used up until S/N 31206, which is a 54'.

-3, 4 replaced -1,2 because Cessna realized Skywagons were nosing over and moved the axle from 22" to 18". On the 180, both -3,4 (standard duty) and -5,6 (heavy duty) were used up until S/N 18051775, and then -7,8 from there. The last iteration -7,8 were used on the late model 180s and 185. For some reason, some outfits are using the word "light duty" to describe -3,4 but thats misleading. Something is only light duty if you use it in the wrong application. LOL. The word “light duty” infers that something is inferior and implies that “heavy duty“ is much more betterer. The Internet is great, but in lots of ways, it’s not. Heavy duty on a 170 in most cases is much more worserer.

IMO, -5,6 are WAY too heavy for a 170B... not to mention the -7,8. What matters is spring rate, and where the axles are with respect to the datum. Folks should choose gear based on the aircraft weight. Know the weight, then pick the proper spring rate commensurate with the median operating weight. IOW, you don't want to toss gear on a bird with a 2200lb GW that was meant for one with a 3600 lb GW. The energy that is being vectored into the airframe that is no longer being dampend by the gear as it was intended, probably isn’t doing the good things for the 80 year old airframe.

Looks like Roman has the standard duty C180 legs, which are one of the suitable choices, along with the -1,2 to use on the Super 170B. Difference being spring rate, physical weight (-1,2 are like 1.5lbs lighter ea) and wheels forward" or "wheels aft."

Hope this helps...

Greg-

The depth of your 170/180/185 knowledge in amazing Bigrenna.

Excellent breakdown, Greg.
FYI Greg has a "skywagon differences" page on his website,
with a wealth of knowledge about year-by-year changes to the 180 & 185.
I think most of that info was compiled by Joe Stancil, of Skywagons-R-Us fame.

https://bushwagoneast.com/skywagon-differences/

Tom Anderson also has some good gear leg info on his website:

https://tlgw.aero/main-landing-gear-identification/

FWIW a previous owner put a set of the -7 & -8 gear legs on my 180, a fairly light 53 model.
Replacing the standard 1953 model "wheels aft" gear with a set of "wheels forward" gear was a good idea,
but IMHO I think the -3 & -4 legs (like what's for sale here) would have been a much better choice.
Like bigrenna points out, with a lighter airplane the heavier duty gear transmits more energy into the airframe--
which equals more stress & sometimes damage.

Greg, Thanks for clarifying.
I'm interested in moving this set, willing to take reasonable offers from the BCP community, leaving some room to contribute back to BCP. These don't come around often in this condition. Roman

hotrod180 wrote:I think most of that info was compiled by Joe Stancil, of Skywagons-R-Us fame.

I think so. It's where I sourced it.

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... stinctions

seatothepants wrote:Greg, Thanks for clarifying.
I'm interested in moving this set, willing to take reasonable offers from the BCP community, leaving some room to contribute back to BCP. These don't come around often in this condition. Roman

The point of my response to your offer wasn't looking for a breakdown of all Cessna gear legs.....it was so that you might post WHICH Cessna gear legs you are selling. That information MIGHT be useful to a prospective buyer.

MTV

mtv wrote:The point of my response..,

The point of MY post Mike, was to gently point out that your question was misleading and flawed.

There is no such thing as early OR late as there aren't just two choices. Roman clearly lists exactly what he has for sale, which couldn’t be more clear or helpful to any “perspective buyer“