Who are our resident 180 experts? What do I need to know about the early 54-56 model gear legs? Are they too light to run ABW? Is the gear box the same as the later models?

Appreciate any insight. I’m in need of another Wagon but I’ve got more direct experience with the later models.

I am far from an expert, but I believe the gear boxes are the same. I know of others running 31's on stock 56 legs. I run 185 legs on my '53 with 29's.
In some turbulence and or air speeds the gear legs wobble a little bit, I get it with my 185 legs but not as much as with 31's on '56 legs. But on either it is pretty minimal.

10 years +, no babying, ABW on the lightest of the 180 gear, I'd say yes...



The thought of stiffening up the suspension while trying to lighten up the the airplane, and at the same time adding 'unsprung' weight escapes me?
Everyone in the cub world is looking for plusher rides, while wagon owners seem to lean towards developing flying hardtails

Take care, Rob

TxAgfisher wrote:Who are our resident 180 experts? What do I need to know about the early 54-56 model gear legs? Are they too light to run ABW? Is the gear box the same as the later models? Appreciate any insight. I’m in need of another Wagon but I’ve got more direct experience with the later models.

I think a bigger issue is not that the early gear legs are lighter, but that the 53 & 54 legs are a couple inches farther aft.
This is good info, on more than just the gear leg differences:

https://skywagons.com/content/cessna-sk ... ar-changes

TxAgfisher wrote:Who are our resident 180 experts? What do I need to know about the early 54-56 model gear legs? Are they too light to run ABW? Is the gear box the same as the later models?

There is a lot of confusion around Cessna MLG. If the gear has been inspected and has a proper bill of health, than there will be no issues, provided you keep them as light as you can. The big issue I see these days is folks running very heavy combos on gear they just assume is fine... No one is really asking what happens when they toss 55lbs at the end of a 70 year old steel stick.

IMHO, the 29's are the perfect tire for the wagon. They are just so much fun to fly, and all things considered, they are light, at about 30lbs NET per side. The close second is the new Desser 8.5x6, which sit at 22" tall, and are like 12lbs... and will let you go pretty much every where you want to go without the machismo tax.

I have gotten in the habit now of re-habbing the gear on every bird I am involved in. In more cases than not, we have found deficits to the spring steel where we were glad to have brought the gear back to snuff.

The biggest take home is identifying which gear is on the bird. The P/Ns are in pairs: -1,-2, -3,-4, -5,-6, and -7, -8. Early 180s had the first 4. Here is what's important: Make sure that the bird indeed has the correct gear on it.

The very first 180s came with the -1, -2 gear, which are commonly referred to as "wheels aft." I'm still trying to find it (and if anyone has the bulletin, please PM me) but somewhere in like 53/54 Cessna released a bulletin warning about the gear (birds were nosing over.) They subsequently changed to the "wheels forward" which (if you didn't guess) moved the axles forward, helping the CG and stopping some of the less desirable events.

In many cases, these -1, -2 gear were removed from birds, found themselves floating around in the backs of hangars... and in some cases, found their way onto later model (early) 180s. Here is the typical situation: Somone ground loops, prings a leg, asks around, and someone inevitably pipes up and says, "I think Joe has a set of 180 gear in his garage." Next thing you know theres a 180 running the wrong gear for 20 years.

The problem with this, is not only is it not safe, but it's actually not legal to run. If you look at the IPC, the -1,-2 gear are only allowed on a handful of SN's, so technically this setup cant be signed off at annual. (I know I know...) Insert eye rolls here, but I am in the middle of an annual on a 56 which had a set installed, and since there is no basis to run them, they had to get swapped out. Safer for sure, but a real annoyance.

If anyone is interested, its easy to pull out the tape measure and measure. On wheels fwd, the axle should be 18" aft of the datum, which is the firewall. You can also find the S/N at the very bottom of the gear leg. If there is a prefix "A," than you want to think about swapping em out.

Anyway, that's a lot of round-about dribble to say run the 29s... They are a real joy, with the smiles generated eclipsing the wallet hit by many factors.

Ah man.... I guess I should have realized that an expert would have known that when the OP asked about strength and durability, what he really meant was about rolling C of G

In light of full disclosure, the 180 pictured above is on the earliest 'aft' gear. I like that I can have a lighter tail on the ground, while still having a reasonably aft cg in the air. Something anyone taking note of all the attention 180/5 tails have been getting lately might think about...
I am also of the opinion that 180/5's are some of the most docile tailwheel airplanes. If you land them crooked, putting the mains clear out in front of the prop isn't going to help...

Take care, Rob

Bigrenna wrote: The big issue I see these days is folks running very heavy combos on gear they just assume is fine... No one is really asking what happens when they toss 55lbs at the end of a 70 year old steel stick.
Anyway, that's a lot of round-about dribble to say run the 29s... They are a real joy, with the smiles generated eclipsing the wallet hit by many factors.

Actually , I think this is exactly what the OP is asking. And I guess that's a pretty reasonable question. Is the 55lb airborne load the steel stick is carrying significantly more detrimental than the ~600lb , load the same steel stick is seeing from the airframe bolted to the other end while parked?

I imagine that 600lb load can be increased quite dramatically in a 'firm' landing, or roll out through 'rougher' fields... not that I have ever experienced any of those

I do imagine the longer arm of a larger tire can have detrimental effects on an axel, but I also imagine most C18x axels with bushwheels hanging on them have been cycled out by HD models.

I will say that I quit running 29x11-10 Airhawks because they would on occasion set up a weird oscillation in flight that seemed like unnecessary wear, and the stiff sidewalls seemed to negate the shock absorption I install larger tires for... But I doubt the added weight over a standard 29" bushwheel had much effect on the gear leg.

We had a local mechanic tell one of the local 180 owners (a 180 based on gravel) that he would no longer annual / maintain the bird if it went on ABW's. Clearly he had not ridden in an airplane on ABW while rolling along rougher gravel.

Take care, Rob