PDA

View Full Version : Cessna 120/140 wheel extension



babyace
02-18-2013, 08:38 AM
I have seen wheel extensions on Cessna 120/140 to move the wheels about 2 or three inches forward to put mor weight on the tail. I want to use something simular on my baby ace can someone give me a discription (material and dementions) Mike

martymayes
02-18-2013, 09:26 AM
I have seen wheel extensions on Cessna 120/140 to move the wheels about 2 or three inches forward to put mor weight on the tail. I want to use something simular on my baby ace can someone give me a discription (material and dementions) Mike

The Cessna wheel extenders are 5" long by 2-3/4" wide by 5/8" thick, made from steel plate. Combined weight of both extenders is 5 lbs. They move the axle forward 3". They have eight holes, two holes in one end are counterbored for clearance with the original Goodyear brake disc clips. Counterboring is not necessary for Cleveland brakes. The original axle bolts were 1/4" dia., later they were increased to 5/16". There is substantial shear forces on the bolts that hold the extenders to the gear leg, which was the reason for up sizing the bolts. I think that will prove to be a challenge if you are using the stock baby ace gear.

martymayes
02-18-2013, 09:32 AM
If you put a bathroom scale under your tailwheel now, what kind of reading do you get?

jam0552@msn.com
02-18-2013, 07:26 PM
If you put a bathroom scale under your tailwheel now (http://eaaforums.org/#), what kind of reading do you get?

I agree with the above - if you move your gear forward, you are putting even more weight on the tailwheel. That, in turn will increase the tendency to swap ends if the tail begins to come around. The most easily controllable taildragger will have the maximum percentage of the aircraft total weight on the main gear wheels and only a minimum amount of weight on the tailwheel (50 lb. or so).
-Joel Marketello

WLIU
02-18-2013, 08:02 PM
The original post does not give a reason for wanting to move the main wheels forward.

I will suggest that weight on the tailwheel is a trade-off. As is the position of the main wheels. Moving the main wheels forward will make the airplane more resistant to nosing over. Moving the main wheels forward moves the CG a little forward. The weight on the tailwheel will increase, but not by a lot. A few, and I mean 5lbs or so, more pounds on the tailwheel will not make the airplane significantly more likely to swap ends assuming that the vertical fin and rudder are the right size in the first place.

Last month I threw my Pitts up on the scales. Empty weight is 1058 with 62 lbs on the tailwheel. Weighed my Swift a number of years ago. Empty weight 1366 with 37lbs on the tailwheel. Much easier to nose over the Swift. I will guess that the weight that you want on the tailwheel is actually a percentage of the empty (or gross) weight.

So what is the goal?

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

babyace
02-20-2013, 07:29 AM
If you put a bathroom scale under your tailwheel now, what kind of reading do you get?
I get 35lbs with a wood prop. but I am going to an 0-200 engine and I think the tail will be even lighter. Thanks for the reply..Mike

babyace
02-20-2013, 07:31 AM
Thank you so much for the info...and for the reply...Mike

babyace
02-20-2013, 07:49 AM
The goal is to keep the Ace from nosing over. It does not have a tendency to be really "mean" on the ground but I want to go to an 0-200 to replace the Cont. 65 The plan calls for a standard J-3 gear. That was the reason for the questions on mod. Thanks for the reply. Mike

WLIU
02-20-2013, 12:42 PM
A quick internet search suggests that the dry weight of the C-65 and the dry weight of the O-200 are almost the same if you do not add heavy accessories. So there may not be a need to move the wheels forward.

I will suggest that the Cub gear is so simple that you might just weld up new gear legs with the axles in the location that you want.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

JimRice85
02-20-2013, 07:48 PM
I agree, excessive tail weight isn't good. I had a Starduster Too that had over 100# on the tailwheel. It wasn't squirrelly, but it wasn't the easiest in the ground handling either because of the weight. I also have a Swift and it is light on the tailwheel too, despite moving the battery behind the seats. I've lifted the tail before taxiing slowly when the sole of my boot hung up between the pedal arm and the pedal. The first thing I learned that day was choice of foot ware matters. Second was an appreciation for just how easy it is to accidentally lift the tail. I think the 50# on my Cub tailwheel is about right and it weighs 726# empty.

martymayes
02-21-2013, 05:27 PM
I get 35lbs with a wood prop. but I am going to an 0-200 engine and I think the tail will be even lighter. Thanks for the reply..Mike

How much when you sitting in the plane?

cluttonfred
02-22-2013, 12:11 AM
+1 on the suggestions to put the engine on first, then do a W&B check as well as measure the weight on the tailwheel. You may also find that going with a heavier tailwheel or moving a battery or ELT further aft is enough to balance out any changes because of the long lever arm.

Tailwheeler Too
02-08-2017, 12:48 PM
I have seen wheel extensions on Cessna 120/140 to move the wheels about 2 or three inches forward to put mor weight on the tail. I want to use something simular on my baby ace can someone give me a discription (material and dementions) MikeI have over 300 hours in a C 120 that I owned. I could pick up the tail with just prop blast while holding the brakes ( a bit scary ! ) BUT the plane had NO tendency to nose over - the horizontal stab & elevator did their job. I felt way more in control and safer with only two wheels on the ground ( take off or landing ). I had a friend with the same plane ( one year newer ). He had the extenders on. Not only could he not take off or land on two wheels ( a real loss in cross wind conditions ) - it was really hard to lift his tail for any purpose ( like when moving / parking ). This is not a modification to undertake lightly.....

1600vw
02-08-2017, 02:41 PM
I would put a little bigger main wheel on her. This will make her a little taller and put more weight on the tail wheel. I did this on an airplane that I ground looped more times then not. After I raised the mains some this really helped and no more ground loops in this airplane. It may work here too.

Tony

Sam Buchanan
02-09-2017, 10:03 AM
The goal is to keep the Ace from nosing over. It does not have a tendency to be really "mean" on the ground but I want to go to an 0-200 to replace the Cont. 65 The plan calls for a standard J-3 gear. That was the reason for the questions on mod. Thanks for the reply. MikeThe weight difference between the A-65 and O-200 is going to be dependent on how you equip the O-200. Both engines weight very near the same without any accessories. Leave off the vacuum pump, starter, and alternator and the O-200 should not add any significant weight to your plane. If you need an alternator, B&C makes a nifty little unit that bolts onto the O-200 vacuum pad and weighs less than four pounds. The O-200 in my Fokker D.VII (http://fokkerd7.com) has the small alternator and lightweight Sky-Tec starter and is a very nice combination with minimal weight.